Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
IndustrialStruck OutNot stated in the extract provided· [2014] KEIC 119 (KLR)

Thuo v Green World International Kenya Limited (Cause 2450 of 2012) (Employment and Labour) [2014] KEIC 119 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
1 November 2013
NMNzioka wa Makau
263 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a worker's claim because he quit a contract the same day he signed it, without ever performing it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent brought an application to dismiss the Claimant's suit as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of court process. The dispute concerned an employment contract signed by the Claimant but terminated the same day, with the Claimant now seeking compensation arising from it. Mr. Njuguna, counsel for the Respondent, submitted that the Claimant had sought to be relieved from the contract the very day he signed it, that there was therefore no performance of the contract, and that the claim for unfair termination could not satisfy the threshold in Section 45(3) of the Employment Act. He relied on the affidavit of William Su deposed on 12th July 2013 and on the Defence, which indicated that the Claimant had found alternative employment. Mr. Nyamiaka, for the Claimant, opposed the application, maintaining that the contract was for a two-year term, that the affidavit in support contained falsehoods, and that the contract had been illegally and maliciously terminated; he urged the court to let the matter proceed to a hearing on the merits. The court agreed with the Respondent: there had been no performance of the contract, and no cause of action could be founded upon it. Adopting the principle that a party cannot rely on a contract he has not performed, the court dismissed the suit with costs to the Respondent. The Claimant's request for a determination on the merits was therefore refused.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a suit founded on a contract terminated without any performance by the claimant is an abuse of process

Holding

Yes - the suit was dismissed because there was no performance of the contract and hence no cause of action

Reasoning

The contract was signed but terminated the same day by the Claimant, who sought to be relieved of his duties having found other employment. The Respondent's affidavit of William Su deposed on 12th July 2013 established this. The court accepted the Respondent's submission that a party cannot seek to rely on a contract he has not performed, and that there can be no cause of action based on an unperformed contract. Accordingly the suit was dismissed for being frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A party cannot rely on a contract he has not performed; no cause of action arises from an unperformed contract

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the Respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (specific enabling provision not cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Thuo v Green World International Kenya Limited (Cause 2450 of 2012)  (Employment and Labour) [2014] KEIC 119 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Not stated in the extract provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keic/2014/119/eng@2014-02-11

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