The Implications Of Dual Employment In Termination Claims- Ogola V Anyango (appeal E138 Of 2024) [2024] Keelrc 13504 (klr)

Facts of the Case

The lower court delivered a ruling striking out suit Mombasa CMELRC No. E592 of 2022 on grounds that it was res judicata. The appellant was aggrieved with its decision and hence appealed to the High Court.

Appellant’s submissions

The appellant averred that the suit was not res judicata since he had been employed by two different employers, related to different terminal dues and involved different agreements. He relied on this ground to claim that the learned magistrate had made an error in making a decision that the suits were similar and hence contrary to the principles of res judicata.

Respondent’s Submissions

The Respondent contented that the Appellant’s suit was res judicata since it was similar with another suit.

Issue for determination

· Did the trial magistrate make an error by determining that the appellant’s claim was res judicata?

Analysis and finding of the court

The court held that dual employment was not permissible and it could only suffice consecutively. As a result, working for two different employers for the same amount of time was not feasible as this would undermine the core of Article 41 of the Constitution, which demands fair labor practices. Further, it was impermissible to obtain a certificate of service from two different employers for the same duration. The court recommended consolidation of the two claims under one suit.

Conclusion & How We Can Assist

With a team of advocates that have specialized in employment law, we have expertise to assist you navigate employment claims in ensuring that the rights of both employers and employees are protected.

By Amy Onderi

Advocate Trainee