SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Patrick Kamau Kariru v Geofarthom Drilling Co Limited & another [2017] KEELRC 1485 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1485 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1485
Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1485 (KLR)
Decided
13 April 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeUnlawful Termination and Unpaid BenefitsPostureClaimant's Original TrialCoramLINNET NDOLO
Holding

The Court finds that there was no employment relationship between the Claimant and the 2nd Respondent and dismisses the Claimant's claim against the 2nd Respondent. The Claimant's claims for salary arrears and borehole incentives are allowed.

Facts

Claimant Patrick Kamau Kariru sued the 1st Respondent Geofarthom Drilling Co Limited and the 2nd Respondent Egoskarm (East Africa) Limited for unlawful termination of employment and failure to pay terminal benefits. The 1st Respondent denied the existence of an employment relationship and claimed that the Claimant was paid all his dues.

Issues

  1. Whether there was an employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondents
  2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
  3. Whether the Respondents have proved valid counterclaims against the Claimant

Reasoning

The Court ruled that the Claimant was employed by the 1st Respondent and dismissed the 2nd Respondent's counterclaim. The Claimant's claims for salary arrears and borehole incentives were allowed as the 1st Respondent failed to provide employment records.

Outcome

The Claimant is awarded Kshs. 455,000 in salary arrears and borehole incentives.

Orders

  • The Claimant is awarded Kshs. 455,000 in salary arrears and borehole incentives.
  • Interest on the award will accrue at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Each party will bear their own costs.

Remedies

  • Salary arrears
  • Borehole incentives
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case