Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNairobi ELRC Cause No. E376 of 2023· [2024] KEELRC 2357 (KLR)

Trenk v Cricket Kenya (Cause E376 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2357 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 September 2024
JGJacob Gakeri
4,410 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a man's claim for USD 176,000 because he could not prove he was actually an employee of the Cricket Association of Kenya.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, Walter Mukinginyi Trenk, sued the Cricket Association of Kenya alleging he was employed as Deputy Chief Executive Officer at USD 3,600 per month and was owed salary arrears of USD 176,000, seeking a declaration that non-payment was unfair and unlawful, damages for discriminatory violation of rights, costs and interest. The Respondent denied any employment relationship, relying on a Memorandum of Understanding signed on 9th May 2022 between the Claimant and the Association for an intended cooperation with the Barbados Cricket Association, under which a fee of Kshs.400,000 was agreed, and contending the MOU was never ratified by its Board and the intended cooperation never materialised. The court framed three issues: existence of an employment relationship, violation of rights, and entitlement to reliefs. Analysing the MOU, board minutes and emails, the court found the MOU was a stepping stone to possible employment, never ratified, with the Deputy CEO position not existing under the Respondent's Constitution. The Claimant produced no evidence of agreed salary, reporting lines, leave, statutory deductions or workplace. Applying the Section 2 Employment Act definitions and the burden under Section 107 of the Evidence Act, the court held the Claimant failed to prove an employment relationship; consequently the court lacked jurisdiction, no rights violation was proved, and all reliefs were declined. The suit was dismissed with no orders as to costs on 30th September 2024, delivered virtually at Nairobi.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an employment relationship existed between the Claimant and the Respondent

Holding

No employment relationship existed; the parties' relationship was governed solely by the MOU with a fee of Kshs.400,000

Reasoning

The MOU made no reference to employment, salary, reporting lines or work schedule. The Claimant adduced no verifiable evidence of an agreed salary, leave, statutory deductions or place of work, and the board minutes show the MOU was never ratified and the Deputy CEO position did not exist. Section 2 Employment Act definitions show wages/salary as central, and the burden under Section 107 Evidence Act lay on the Claimant.

p. 9
02

Whether the Respondent violated the Claimant's rights by discrimination or unfair labour practice

Holding

No violation proved; allegations unsubstantiated

Reasoning

The Claimant tendered no evidence of what right was violated, when or how he was discriminated against, and did not allege he was treated differently from others in similar circumstances unlawfully.

p. 9
03

Entitlement to the reliefs sought

Holding

All reliefs declined as the foundational employment relationship was not proved

Reasoning

The declaration, the USD 176,000 and damages for discrimination all depended on proof of employment, which failed; each prayer was accordingly declined.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • A claimant alleging employment bears the burden of proving the existence of an employment relationship
  • Jurisdiction is a threshold matter determined by the existence of an employment relationship

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's suit against the Respondent is dismissed with no orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution (Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction); employment relationship challenged as a jurisdictional fact

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Trenk v Cricket Kenya (Cause E376 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2357 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Nairobi ELRC Cause No. E376 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2357/eng@2024-09-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.