Samson Ndombi Keya v Mumtaz S. Hirani [2013] KEELRC 93 (KLR)

REPUBLICOF KENYA

INTHE INDUSTRIAL COURT  OF KENYA CAUSE NO. 1723 OF 2011

SAMSON NDOMBI KEYA………………………………………………………CLAIMANT

VS

MUMTAZ S.HIRANI………………………………………………………RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1.  The Claimant filed his  Claim  on 7th  October 2011  and  the  issue  stated to   be   in   dispute  was   the   Wrongful  and   unfair  dismissal of  the Claimant’s  service  and   failure  by   the   Respondent  to   pay   terminal benefits to  the   Claimant. The  Respondent filed  a  Response   on  28th October 2011  in which she denied the  claim.

2.  On 18th May 2012  the  case herein proceeded before Judge Paul Kosgey who  had  continued to sit in terms of Section 33 of the  Industrial Court Act  2011. The  appearances were  as follows Court  Clerk  Elly  Jometho, Ms. Winnie Talam  for the  Claimant and Mr. Kabaru  for the  Respondent.

3.  At the  hearing, Mr. Kabaru  stated that there were  2 issues  in contention i.e.  whether Claimant left employment on  his  own  violation or  it was the  Respondent who  put  an  end  to  the  employment. There  was  also the  issue of overtime of 3 hours  every day.  Miss Talam  added that there was the  issue of house  allowance as well.

4.  Miss Talam  called the  Claimant Samson  Ndombi Keya who testified that he  lives  in  Kibera  and  is unemployed.   He  was  employed as a driver and  worked or the  Respondent from 15th  July 2010  and  the  salary was

12,000 later raised to  15,000. He did  not get a letter of appointment and he worked up to 1st July 2011. On that day he reported to work  and Respondent said  the  car  was  not washed properly and  that he  didn’t know  to drive properly.  She told  him  to go in her  husband’s presence. He had never been  warned at all.   The Respondent didn’t pay salary for that month.  He  had  taken a salary advance of Ksh.  12,000 and  the balance of Ksh. 3,000 is what she  refused to  pay.  He testified that he used  to  driver her  to  the  office and  would report at 25  minutes to  6 a.m.  or  20  minutes to  6 a.m.    There  was  a book  at the  gate  showing the  time of entry of all employees.  An extract of the  book  produced as Appendix SNK3.   It is GreVillas Staff Book  copy.  Upon  leaving work  he would sign out  too.

5.  The Respondent had  two cars,  he washed the cars  and  at times the husband would drive the 1st  car.  The Claimant would clean  the  Respondent’s car and  also  water the  flowers.  At 9 a.m.  he would take her  to  the  office. He would go to buy  vegetables from city markets for her at 11 a.m.   At noon  he used  to  take  her  home  for lunch.  At home  while Respondent was  eating he  would water the  flowers in  her  garden.  He never took lunch.   After lunch he  took   her  to  office at Aga  Khan  Hospital.   He would stay  with secretary until 3. 20  p.m.  when  he would pick  her  child from school  at Limuru Road  Aga  Khan  Academy and  take  the  child  to the  office.   At 4  p.m.  he  would pick  the  Respondent's husband from Koinange Street.   He  used  to  close  about 5. 15   p.m.     The  Claimant would take him  home  then  leave  for his  house  after signing out.    The Respondent's famliy  live   in  Brookside  Westlands.    This  was  usually around 5. 40  – 6. 00  p.m.   was  thus   Claimant’s time for leaving work every day.    The  aforesaid book  shows  the  same.  The  Claimant stated that  he   used   to   get  a  payslip  which  he   signed  to   acknowledge payment.   The Kshs. 15,000 was not broken down. He stated the Respondent didn’t remit NSSF dues  at all  and  that what was  stated in the  payslip was just basic  pay.   He produced Appendix 4 in support. He stated that he used  to  live  in Uthiru at the  time and  prays  to  court to grant him  his  dues,  Notice pay,  etc.  as stated in  the  Memorandum of Claim.

6.  He was  Cross-examined by  Mr.  Kabaru  and  stated that the  salary was raised to  15,000 in  September 2011   after 2  months of service.   He stated that he didn’t leave  employment and  didn’t return keys  to Respondent. He  stated that he  didn’t sms  her  husband and  that one day  she  quarreled the  Claimant in May  2011.  She came  out  of house saying he hadn’t finished washing the  car and that he was too  slow.  He denied this  and  the  Respondent said  she would look  for another driver. He  went off as  he  was  told  to  go  on  the  same  day.    He  sent  sms  to Respondent's husband stating that he was  willing to  continue working for them.  He then  went back  and  continued working.   At the  end  of June  2011  Respondent claimed the  car  was  not washed properly. She said  he could  go and  she will  sort herself out.   The husband sided  with her  and  the  Claimant was  told   to  leave   and  that he  could   take her anywhere he wanted. Claimant stated he did  not terminate the employment himself. He started work  at 6. 20  – 6. 25  a.m.  by  washing cars,  at 9. 00-9. 15 a.m.  he  would take  Respondent to  hospital.  Before lunch he  would buy  vegetables at the  city market.  It could  take him one hour  buying as he looked for the  cheapest prices.  Over  lunch hour he would water her  plants and  return her  to the  office at about 2 p.m. He used  to  go  to  the  market every day.    Respondent would also  send him   to   other  places   for  errands.    The  husband  used   to   close   his business at 5. 15  p.m.   Claimant used  to sign  the  book  when  going out, he  took  advance of Ksh.  12,000.  He  stated that he  served notice of intention to  sue  in company of a Kituo  cha  Sheria  representative.That marked the  end of the  Claimant’s case.

7.  Mr.   Kabaru   called  the   Respondent  Mumtaz  Hirani.  She  stated the following :-  I  am  the  Respondent,  a  doctor at Aga  Khan  Hospital.  I employed the  claimant as a driver at Ksh. 13,000 which was  raised to 15,000 per  month.   It was  all  inclusive.   He  brought a  petty cash voucher which he used  to sign.   It is SMK 4.  He used  to take  his salary from my  secretary.   He  was  sent   to  me  by  my  husband’s  friend.  I wanted him  to  drive my  son.  We used  to  go to  the  mosque every day as I and my  husband were  priests. We used  to go at 3 a.m.   We used  to open   and  close   the   mosque  and  return to  the   house   at 6. 30   a.m. claimant used  to report about 6. 45  a.m.  He used  to clean  the  cars.   My husband used  to  take  my  daughter to  school  and  come  home.  After breakfast claimant dropped my  husband in the  office and  bring the  car to the  mosque then  come  to my office.  He used  to run certain errands. He   didn’t  take   me   home    for  lunch  because of  traffic.  I  worked continuously.  He dropped keys  and  went for lunch between 12   and  2 p.m.   At 2. 45  he picked my  daughter from school  and  drop  her  home, then  drop  the  keys  to my husband and park  vehicle infront of his office. My  husband  is  a  driver but   he  could   drop   Claimant  near   Kangemi sometimes.  My husband drives himself home.  He had  no work  after 4 p.m.    If Claimant stayed beyond 4 p.m.  he  was  waiting for a lift from my  husband.  I have  my  own  car.   He dropped my  girl  at home  and not my  office.  He had  more  than  one hour  for lunch.  I didn’t sack him.  He had a habit of disappearing in the  morning after dropping keys  with my secretary.  In November my  family visited me from US.  He showed me an  SMS from a  Mzungu who  wanted to  employ him  and  asked  or  a salary of Kshs.15,000. He asked  for 15,000 and I agreed.  In May 2011 one day  I called him  to take  me to Getrude Pangani  clinic.  He came  at 2  p.m.   he  said   he  had   social   reason.    He  threw  the   keys   to   my secretary  saying  he  did   not  want  my   job.     He  SMSd  me   and   my husband saying he was sorry. He was asked  to come  on Sunday. He apologized for leaving and  promised not to  repeat the  mistake.   My husband agreed  to  retain him.     MH1  is  the  text  message. One  day when  we came  from mosque I found the  car was muddy.  This was July when  he left the  job.   When  I asked  him  he said he didn’t want my  job. He said  he wanted to  go.   He asked  for money.  I told  him  to  come  to the  office.  He came  and  I was busy.   He never came  back  until after a month with someone from Sheria.  He is the  one  who  left employment. I  didn’t sack  him.  The  book  annexed is wrong.  He  never used  to  be home   in  the   evening.   He  never came   back   home.   There   was  no reason. After dropping the  car to my husband he wouldn’t come  home. We  have  main  gate  and  individual gates.   The  book  is  kept at main gate.  It doesn’t mean  he  had  reported for work.  The claim should be dismissed with costs.    I pray  for one  month’s notice as he  didn’t give me notice.  That’s all.

8.  She  was  Cross-examined by  Ms.  Talam  and  stated the  following:- His salary was inclusive of house  allowance.  We had a verbal agreement. He drove my husband to work  between 8. 15  – 8. 30.   My affidavit of 24th October 2011   says  at times he  took   my  child   to  school.  He  never performed his work  well.   I used to ask him  about the  shortcomings particularly the  disappearance.  I didn’t write the  complain.  Ours was a verbal contract. The  book  at the  gate  was  for controlling entry to  the house  for security.  The  maids and  drivers would report and  indicate their arrivals.  It was  to  record arrivals and  exits.  He was  to  report at 6. 45,  go for lunch at 1 p.m.  and  leave  at 4 p.m.  after dropping the  car to my  husband.  Part of duties was to drop  my  husband in the  morning. But my husband used to drive.  There  was a parking problem.

9.  The  second witness for the  Respondent was  not present and  hearing was  deferred twice. On 15th  October 2012  the  matter appeared before me and the  appearances were: Mr. Kabaru  Ndegwa for the  Respondent, Ms Talam  for the  Claimant. The  case  was  deferred to  19th  November

2012  as  the  time allocation was  inconvenient to  the  Counsel  for the Respondent.

10. The   witness was  sworn   and  stated the   following  in  examination in chief: My names are  Charles  Mwangi Ngang’a.  I am  the  supervisor of the   Night  Armour  Security  Limited.    They   are  contracted  to  guard Grevilla Apartment.  This is where the  Respondent lives.  I am aware  the Claimant worked for the  Respondent.   He  worked in  January  2011.   I never saw  him  on  the  premises.   I  have  a  Register which was  with guards at the   gate   which  was  to  be  signed off  by  staff who  were reporting on or off duty.  The claimant used  to  report for duty at 7. 00-7. 30  a.m.  and  he  was  not handing over  as he  was  giving car  to  the owner.    I  never  saw  his  signature.    I  used   to   check   the   Register everyday.  Extracts have  been  attached when  he left work. These were done  after except the  incoming ones.    He  used  to  sign  the  following day.   He never came  to premises to sign off. I checked register daily.

11. The   witness  was   cross   examined  by   Miss   Talam   and   stated  the following:- The claimant reported to  work  according to  the  information given by  the  Guard  at the  gate.  He was  referred to  the  Register and SNK 3.   On 1st  March  2011  – 6. 18  a.m.  On 2nd   February 2011  – 06. 20 a.m.  He stated the  entries are  wrong.  The book  is kept by  the  Guard Joseph  Oriento.   He  left the  company.   He  is  no  longer with us.  The book  is for correct entries.  I interfered to  find out  why  they were  not following procedures.  The  claimant never used  to  sign  as he  left. He used  to  hand  over  the  car  elsewhere.  He never came  to  Apartment. The Claimant signed off the  next day.   He should have  signed as he left premises.  The  signing could  be  done  the  next day  as the  guard was not aware  what was being signed. The signature by Mumtaz was in the evening.  The next day  when  signing in one  could  sign  off for the  day before.   I raised it with management on  the  people who  are  signing wrong.  It was  not an  issue  unless  there is a complaint. That  marked the  end of the  case for the  defence.

12. The  witnesses all  were  in agreement that the  Claimant worked for the Respondent. According to  the  Claimant the  hours  of work  were  longer than  was acknowledged. In the  case, the  Claimant produced extracts of the   log=in  register and   at the   end   of  the   trial, the   actual  Log  In Register was produced. In it, the  Claimant was shown  to have  reported to work  at times 6. 20  a.m.  and at times he would report at 6. 00  a.m.  or 6. 35  a.m.  One can therefore safely say that on average he reported at 6. 15  a.m.  or thereabout. The hours  of work  were  from that time till he knocked off which was at times at 4. 15  p.m.  (if the  Respondent is to be believed) or 5. 15  p.m.  or a little later (if the  Claimant is to be believed). In the  absence of a proper clock-out system, it is difficult to determine the  precise time  the  Claimant left  his  place   of employment. In  the premises on the  morning timings are  precise as the  evening check-out was made  retrospectively the  following morning. Be that as it may,  it is clear  the  Claimant did  put  in  some  time beyond the  usual  times. He would work  for 9-10  hours  daily. This was beyond the  statutory periods of 8 hours. He thus  would be entitled to pay  for the  extra hours  worked which were  2 per  day.  Using  his  pay  as the  determinant, the  amount due   would  be  Kshs.  625/   for 5  days   a  week   aggregating to  Kshs. 2,500/- per  month and  Kshs. 30,000/-for the  year.  He is entitled to this  sum.

13. The   proof of payment attached to  the  Claimant’s Claim  showed the payment made  was 15,000/- per  month. The employer is bound by law to  keep/maintain records of employment. The  Claimant exhibited the slip   which  was   stamped  by   the    Claimant’s  employer   indicating payment  and   confirming  receipt  of  Kshs.   15,000/-  per   month.  No statutory deductions were  made  and  it is  clear  that the  sum  did  not include house  allowance. Housing is a right to  which all  Kenyan's are entitled to and  the  Constitution under Article 43(1)(b) makes provision for the  same.  Section 31(1) of the  Employment  Act  is also  clear.  The Claimant was entitled to Housing. Rather than  opine  as the  Respondent did    the    the    amount   of   15,000/-  necessarily   includeshouse allowancethe  same  must be  provided expressly. The  rate  applicable in   the   period  of  employment  was   Kshs.   1,536/-  per   month.  The Claimant was  in  employment for 1 year  and  the  total due  under this head  is Kshs. 18,432/-.

14. As  no statutory deductions were  made, the  service pay  is due  in terms of Section 35  of the  Employment  Act.  The  service pay  in  this  case  is Kshs. 7,500/-which is pay for 15 days  for each year  worked.

15.   In  the  final result, the  Claimant  succeeds to  the  extent that he  is awarded

? Kshs. 30,000 for overtime

? Kshs. 18,432/- for house  allowance

? Kshs. 7,500/- for service pay.

The balance of the  Claim  was unproved and  the  claims for payment in lieu  of Notice and unpaid salary are dismissed.

16. The Claimant will  also have  costs and interest on the  lower scale.

It is so ordered.

Dated and delivered in Nairobi on this  15th day of January 2013.

Justice Nziokiwa  Makau

Judge