Bunyi v Saab Kenya Limited (Cause 989 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 3238 (KLR) (7 December 2023) (Judgment)

Transaction Type

Key Facts

Issues

• The court determined whether the Claimant's execution of the Separation Agreement and Discharge Voucher on 8th June 2016 and 13th June 2016, respectively, constituted a valid waiver of all outstanding claims, including alleged unpaid overtime, annual leave, and sick leave, and whether the agreement was entered into under duress or undue influence as claimed by the Claimant.
• The court assessed the Claimant's entitlement to unpaid overtime, annual leave, sick leave, and gratuity, finding that the claim for discrimination lacked evidence, the claims for unpaid benefits were unproven due to the absence of documentary support, and the Separation Agreement precluded further claims under principles of estoppel and contractual obligation.

Holdings

• The Claimant's request for gratuity was rejected due to the absence of contractual provisions for gratuity in his employment agreement and no membership in a trade union. The court clarified that gratuity is a contractual obligation, not a statutory entitlement, and his claim was deemed unmerited.
• The Claimant's assertion of being denied annual leave was contradicted by his own submitted leave application forms (149 days total, including 77 annual leave days). The court deemed his allegations dishonest and dismissed the claim for annual leave and public holiday overtime.
• The court found the Claimant's overtime pay claims unproven. His employment contract explicitly stated no compensation for hours exceeding 40 per week, and he failed to provide evidence of worked hours or disputes during employment. The court referenced precedents to support this determination.
• The court dismissed the Claimant's prayer for sick leave payment of Kshs.133,531.00 as there was no documentary evidence or proof of sick leave entitlement. The Claimant's written statement and testimony did not establish any medical documentation or sick off days, rendering the claim unsustainable.
• The damages for alleged discrimination were dismissed as the Claimant provided no evidence of differential treatment. His contradictory testimony regarding leave approvals and failure to identify specific colleagues further undermined his credibility.
• The court upheld the validity of the Separation Agreement and discharge voucher signed on 8th June 2016 and 13th June 2016. The Claimant failed to prove coercion, undue influence, or fraud in executing these documents, which were found to be binding and precluded further claims.

Remedies

• The prayer for sick leave payment was dismissed due to the absence of any documentary evidence (e.g., medical certificates) or testimony confirming the Claimant was granted sick leave and not paid for it. The court found the claim lacked foundational proof.
• The court ruled that each party should bear their own costs, as no party prevailed on the merits of the case. This follows from the dismissal of all claims and the enforceability of the signed settlement documents.
• The entire suit was dismissed as unsustainable. The court found the Claimant's allegations (e.g., coercion in signing the Separation Agreement, denial of leave) unproven and concluded the signed documents (Separation Agreement and discharge voucher) were binding and covered all dues.
• The court dismissed the Claimant's request for payment in lieu of annual leave, noting he had actually taken 149 days of leave (including 77 days of annual leave) as evidenced by approved leave application forms. The contractual provisions for leave were found to be more favorable than statutory requirements.
• The claim for damages based on alleged discrimination was dismissed. The Claimant provided no evidence of discriminatory treatment, and his contradictory statements about being denied leave while others were approved undermined his credibility.
• The Claimant's request for gratuity/terminal benefits was dismissed, as his contract contained no provision for gratuity, and he was not a member of a trade union. The court distinguished gratuity from statutory service pay and found the claim contractual in nature and unsupported.
• The court dismissed the Claimant's claim for unpaid overtime, as he failed to provide evidence of the number of hours worked beyond the 40-hour week as per his contract. The contract explicitly stated he would not be compensated for extra hours, and he did not contest this during employment.

Legal Principles

• The court applied the principle of estoppel, holding that the Claimant's execution of the discharge voucher and Separation Agreement bound him to the terms, preventing him from pursuing additional claims against the Respondent.
• The court determined that the Claimant did not prove the existence of duress, as there was no evidence of actual violence or threats by the Respondent to vitiate the Separation Agreement.
• The court applied the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda, recognizing the Separation Agreement as a binding contract between the parties, unless proven otherwise by vitiating factors like duress.
• The court emphasized that the Claimant failed to discharge his burden of proof for claims of overtime, annual leave, and coercion, leading to the dismissal of his case.

Key Disputed Contract Clauses

• The employment contract explicitly stated that the Claimant would not be compensated for work hours exceeding 40 per week, including weekends, and this clause was central to the court's dismissal of his overtime claims.
• The Separation Agreement signed by the Claimant included a binding waiver clause stating that the payment satisfied all entitlements, including statutory obligations, which the court upheld as enforceable due to lack of evidence for duress or coercion.
• The contract included a paid home leave vacation clause offering 56 days per year (exclusive of travel time) covering public holidays in Kenya and Somalia, which the court found more favorable than the statutory 21 days under the Employment Act, 2007.

Precedent Name

• Kyrstalline Salt Ltd V Kwekwe Mwakele & 67 others
• Katiwa Kanguli V Bamburi Cement Co. Ltd
• Samuel Chacha Mwita V Kenya Medical Research Institute
• Esther Nyambura Ndegwa V Laboratory & Allied Ltd
• Onesmus Irungu KamaU V Faulu Microfinance Bank Ltd
• Thomas De La Rue (K) Ltd V David Opondo Omutelema
• Combe V Combe
• Trinity Prime Investment Ltd V Lion of Kenya Insurance Co. Ltd
• Samson Gwer & 5 others V Kenya Medical Research Institute
• Pius Kimaiyo Langat V Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd

Cited Statute

• Civil Procedure Act
• Constitution of Kenya
• Employment Act, 2007

Judge Name

Damages / Relief Type

• Gratuity/terminal benefits, overtime not paid, payment in lieu of annual leave and sick leave.
• Costs of this suit.
• Interest at court rates.
• Damages for discrimination.

Passage Text

• Notwithstanding any unprocessed expense, claims or any payment that you are entitled to but not due yet, you and the company acknowledge and agree that the sums made pursuant to this Agreement satisfy any entitlements or claims that you may have to salary, bonus, allowance, all other benefits and compensation, leaves, severance or terminal payments and all and any other legal and statutory entitlement arising from service with the company, whether arising under the law of Kenya or any other countries.
• The Claimant tendered no evidence of actual violence inflicted on him or threats by either Rossel Thuma or the alleged Elizabeth Wambua.
• In the upshot, the Claimant's suit against the Respondent ought not to have been instituted as it is unsustainable and it is accordingly dismissed.