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

Ngige v Green Pencils Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 943 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 823 (KLR) (18 April 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KEELRC 823 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
823
Citation
[2024] KEELRC 823 (KLR)
Decided
18 April 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment and Labour RelationsPostureAppeal from original trialCoramMATHEWS NDERI NDUMA
Holding

The court dismissed both the main suit and the counter claim as the claimant failed to prove he was an employee of the respondent and the respondent failed to prove the claimant was involved in theft and substandard production.

Facts

The claimant, Sammy Ngige, claimed unpaid salary and damages for unlawful termination from Green Pencils Limited, a pencil manufacturing company. Ngige alleged he was employed as a factory manager and was owed Kshs. 988,076/= for ten months of unpaid salary. The respondent, Green Pencils Limited, denied Ngige's claims and counterclaimed for Kshs. 11,000,000/= for theft of pencils and substandard production.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimant has any merit.
  2. Whether the respondent's counterclaim has any merit.
  3. What reliefs are the claimant and the respondent entitled to.

Reasoning

The court found that Ngige did not provide an employment contract and did not produce demand letters for his salary. The court also found that the venture did not succeed and the respondent failed to prove the claimant's involvement in theft and substandard production.

Outcome

Both the main suit and the counter claim are dismissed.

Orders

  • Each party to meet their own costs of the suit.
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case