Joseph Muriungi Rukioya v Methodist Church in Kenya [2017] KEELRC 1017 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI

RULING CAUSE NO. 715 OF 2016

JOSEPH MURIUNGI RUKIOYA..………..……………………CLAIMANT

VERSUS

THE METHODIST CHURCH IN KENYA…………………RESPONDENT

RULING

1. By a Notice of Motion dated 26th April, 2016, the claimant/applicant sought an order of the court that the respondent be ordered to pay him the already admitted sum of Kshs. 2,134,634/= for unlawful and unfair termination of employment.

2. The application was based on the grounds among others that after making demands, the respondent by a letter dated 13th October 2015 offered to pay the claimant a sum of Kshs. 2,134,634/=.

3. The respondent denied any such admission and further averred that it paid the claimant Kshs. 2,224,418. 80/= which was more than the sum the claimant sought to be paid on account of admission.

4. By a letter dated 21st September, 2015, the claimant through his advocate demanded to be paid Kshs. 5,236,770/= as his terminal benefits.  By a letter dated 24th September 2015, the respondent’s advocate replied to the demand letter proposing amicable settlement.  The letter further requested the claimant’s counsel to furnish them with copies of documents in support of their client’s claim.

5. The claimant’s counsel responded through their letter dated 1st October 2015.  By a letter dated 13th October 2015, the respondent’s advocate proposed on behalf of her client the willingness of the respondent to settle the dispute at Kshs. 2,134,634/=.  The claimant’s counsel through his letter dated 21st October 2015 informed counsel for the respondent that his client had rejected the offer for being low.  Counsel for the respondent informed the claimant’s counsel that she was seeking instruction for her client and would revert.  This seemed to have taken long and never happened despite reminders from counsel of the claimant.

6. By a letter dated 18th Jnaury 2016, the claimant’s counsel on his own notion made a counter offer for Kshs. 2,640,255/= with a breakdown of how the figure was arrived at.  This letter elicited no response from the respondent’s counsel leading to penultimate demand dated 18th February 2016 warning the respondent of intended court action.

7. From the chronology of events, set out above, it emerges quite clearly that the respondent made an offer to settle this dispute at Kshs. 2,134,634/= which offer was rejected by the claimant.  The claimant subsequently made a counter-offer of Kshs. 2,640,2555/= at which offer the respondent never acknowledge nor reacted to prompting the instant.  It therefore cannot be said that there was an admission on the part of the respondent to pay the claimant the same of Kshs. 2,134,634/=.

8.  An offer to settle a claim at a particular figure cannot be construed as an admission of the claim.  Such offers are usually made without prejudice and can only become binding once unequivocally accepted by the other party.  In this particular case, the counter-offer by the claimant cancelled out the offer by the respondent hence it cannot be said that there was an admission to pay the claimant the sum claimed.

9. In conclusion the court will not enter any judgment on admission as sought and will direct that the suit proceeds to trial on merit.

10.  It is so ordered.

Dated at Nairobi this 14th day of July 2017

Abuodha J. N.

Judge

Delivered at Nairobi this 14th day of July 2017

In the presence of:-

…………………………………………………….. for the claimant

…………………………………………………. for the respondent

Abuodha J. N.

Judge