Kamau v Transit Company Limited (Cause 274 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1815 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Claimant proved arrears of salary for September 2019 to January 2020 and annual leave
- 2.Whether the Claimant was entitled to compensatory damages equivalent of 12 months' salary
- 3.Whether the Respondent's Counterclaim for return of motor vehicle KBQ 221 J and damages of Kshs. 432,000 was proved
Key legal issues
#Entitlement to salary arrears
The Claimant proved arrears of salary only for November 2019 at Kshs. 100,000
The Claimant testified he was dismissed in August 2019, paid August salary late, and recalled in November 2019 but not paid for that month. He was not in employment in September, October and December 2019, and offered no evidence of work in early 2020. The court therefore limited the award to November 2019 salary.
Compensatory damages of 12 months' salary
The prayer was declined as compensation requires proof of unfair termination under Section 49 of the Employment Act
The Claimant did not plead unfair termination, never clarified when or how he finally left employment, and focused on multiple departures and returns to the employment relationship. Compensation is a statutory remedy tied to unfair termination, which was neither pleaded nor established, so the ambiguous claim for Kshs. 1,200,000 failed.
The Counterclaim
Dismissed for want of evidence
The Respondent alleged the Claimant absconded while retaining motor vehicle KBQ 221 J and counterclaimed for its release and damages of Kshs. 432,000 for alternative transport. The Respondent neither appeared nor adduced evidence when its case was closed, leaving the Counterclaim unproved, and it was dismissed from the outset.
Legal principles established
#- The statutory remedy of compensation equivalent of 12 months' salary under Section 49 of the Employment Act is founded on proof of unfair termination
- A party bearing the burden of proving its claim, including a counterclaim, must adduce evidence in support of it
Court orders
#- 1.The Counterclaim is declined
- 2.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant salary arrears at Kshs. 100,000
- 3.Costs to the Claimant
- 4.Interest granted at court rate, from the date of Judgment till payment is made in full
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Statement of Claim filed 2nd July 2020)
Relief refused
#Compensatory damages equivalent of 12 months' salary (Kshs. 1,200,000)
Not pleaded as compensation for unfair termination and no unfair termination established
Arrears of salary for September, October, December 2019 and January 2020
Claimant not in employment during those months and no evidence of work in early 2020
Annual leave claim
Unspecified and not established given the Claimant's frequent departures and returns
Costs
Costs to the Claimant, with interest at court rate from the date of Judgment till payment is made in full.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
There is no evidence adduced by the Respondent to support the Counterclaim. The Counterclaim cannot stand, and is dismissed from the outset.
Compensation is awarded on proof of unfair termination.
The Court can only grant him arrears of salary for November 2019 - at Kshs. 100,000.
The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant salary arrears at Kshs. 100,000.
Interest grated at court rate, from the date of Judgment till payment is made in full.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number not stated in the judgment copy provided
Typos in the judgment, e.g. 'Labour Ofice' and 'ofiered', apparently OCR or transcription errors
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamau v Transit Company Limited (Cause 274 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1815 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment copy provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1815/eng@2024-07-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.