Kimeu Kieti & 184 others v Kenya Meat Commission [2018] KEELRC 44 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed 185 ex-employees' redundancy pay claim and ordered them to pay Kshs.81.7 million in rent arrears and vacate staff houses within 30 days.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether claimants were entitled to terminal dues
Claim dismissed on this head; dues were paid at the time of separation
The claimants relied on section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007 and authorities on redundancy notices, arguing non-payment since 1994. The respondent produced documentary evidence of payment. The claimants adduced no evidence of non-payment or of the alleged arrangement to retain housing pending payment. Applying sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act, the court found the dues were paid in satisfaction of the redundancy.
Whether the claimant's plea of unlawful redundancy was properly before the court
No - legality of redundancy was never pleaded and could not be determined
The respondent objected that the legality of the redundancy was never pleaded. Relying on the authority in Hellen Wangare Wangeci, the court agreed that parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot raise a different case without amendment. The issue was therefore a non-issue, not having been pleaded ab initio.
Whether eviction should be restrained pending payment of redundancy dues
No restraint; the claim collapsed with the failure of the dues claim
The claimants' continued stay was pegged on unpaid dues, which claim failed. The court also found the claimants had defied prior court orders of 20th December 2010 directing payment of rent arrears as a condition of the injunction, and that continued restraint on the respondent would be an anomaly.
Whether the respondent was entitled to its counterclaim
Yes - counterclaim allowed as prayed
The respondent counterclaimed for Kshs.81,730,500.00 in rental arrears from 104 rental premises occupied by the claimants. The court found the claimants had simply failed to pay rent as and when it fell due since ceasing to be employees, and had defied prior court orders, so the counterclaim was allowed in full.
Legal principles established
#- He who alleges must prove - the burden of proving non-payment of terminal dues lies on the claimant
- Parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot raise a different case without due amendment
- Disobedience of court orders cannot be condoned
Court orders
#- 1.The claimants individually to meet and pay their respective shares of the counter claim of Kshs.81,730,500.00 to the respondent
- 2.The claimants to meet and pay any further sums of rent accrued to the respondents up to the date of voluntary vacation of the premises or eviction, whichever is the earlier
- 3.The claimants, their agents, servants and assigns awarded thirty (30) days to prepare and hand over vacant possession of the respondent's premises they now occupy
- 4.The OCS, Athi River Police Station ordered to effect the judgment by evicting the claimants from the respondent's premises should they not comply within thirty (30) days of the judgment
- 5.The OCS, Athi River Police Station to keep and maintain peace at all times but particularly during the execution of the judgment
- 6.Each party to bear their costs of the claim
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour disputes
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimeu Kieti & 184 others v Kenya Meat Commission [2018] KEELRC 44 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 538 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/44/eng@2018-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.