ELRC COURT SAYS NO PROOF OF EMPLOYMENT NO UNFAIR TERMINATION

Legal alert: Summary of Evernsi Baranga Maninji -v- Elkanah Alubale (Cause E024 of 2024)[2026] KEELRC 220 (KLR) (Judgment 29 January 2026)

Background

Evernsi Baranga Maninji (The Claimant) filed a statement of claim against Elkanah Alubale (The Respondent) in June 2024 seeking special damages of Kshs 2,385,000, a certificate of service, costs, and any other just relief. Elkanah Alubale did not enter appearance or file a Response to the statement of claim, and the matter proceeded undefended, with the claimant testifying on 4th June 2025. Thereafter, the Claimant’s counsel filed written submissions dated 5th August 2025 in support of the claim.

In the statement of claim, Evernsi Baranga Maninji alleged that he was employed by Elkanah Alubale as a farm manager from 2013 until 2024, earning a gross monthly salary of Kshs 1,000. He stated that he was accommodated on the Elkanah Alubale’s farm, supervised workers, and received salary payments via M-Pesa and cash, with deductions allegedly used to purchase land for him. He claimed termination without notice, underpayment contrary to minimum wage guidelines, and non-payment of terminal dues including leave. Consequently, he sought compensation of Kshs 2,385,000 comprising of notice pay, leave pay, underpayment, severance, plus a certificate of service.

Evernsi Baranga Maninji and his counsel argued that despite the absence of a formal employment contract or dismissal letter, the Respondent was effectively the Claimant’s employer. They relied on Mpesa statements showing payments between 2016 and 2020, and letters from the Assistant Chief, NEMA, and the Ward Administrator to support the employment relationship. On reliefs, Evernsi Baranga Maninji and his counsel submitted that the claimant was underpaid by Kshs 11,000 monthly compared to statutory minimum wage, never took leave, and was therefore entitled to Kshs 110,000 in leave pay, Kshs 900,000 in severance, Kshs 15,000 in lieu of notice, and a certificate of service. The court identified four key issues for determination amongest them were whether the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent and whether he was unfairly terminated and entitled to the reliefs sought.

Determination

The court emphasized that even in an undefended claim, the Claimant bore the burden of proof under Sections 107–108 of the Evidence Act, which require that he who alleges must prove. The Claimant failed to establish an employment relationship with the Respondent, AS THE M-PESA STATEMENTS SHOWED IRREGULAR PAYMENTS NOT CONSISTENT WITH SALARY, THE ASSISTANT CHIEF’S LETTER WAS NOT CORROBORATED BY TESTIMONY, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS SUCH AS NEMA NOTICES AND MOVEMENT PERMITS, WERE ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT, NOT THE CLAIMANT. THE LAND SALE AGREEMENT ALSO LACKED PROOF OF PAYMENT BY THE RESPONDENT.

Applying the rule of law, the court held that without proof of employment, the protections of the Employment Act could not be invoked. Since the Claimant could not specify dates of employment or termination and failed to discharge the evidentiary burden, the court dismissed the claim. The principle reinforced is that employment rights and remedies only arise where an employment relationship is proved on a balance of probabilities, and courts will not aid indolent litigants who fail to substantiate their claims.

For more information or assistance in employment matters in Kenya, please contact us on info@aowangaadvocates.com or +254794600191.

All rights reserved for A.O.WANGA ADVOCATES

www.aowangaadvocates.com