[2019] KEELRC 2516 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 2516 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimant was dismissed on frivolous and baseless grounds, as confirmed by the District Commissioner's investigation. The Claimant provided satisfactory explanations to the accusations and was not afforded a fair hearing. However, since the dismissal occurred under the repealed Employment Act Cap 226, the Claimant could not benefit from the current provisions on reinstatement or damages under Section 49(1)(c). The court held that the Claimant was entitled to recover his unpaid salary for the period of suspension, as the suspension was not merited, together with costs and interest, but not reinstatement or additional damages under the newer Act.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 2516 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Abraham Gitonga Mutungi; Respondent: The Permanent Secretary Provincial Administration & Internal Security; Respondent: District Commissioner Meru Central District; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 January 2019
Case Number
Cause 2 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the Claimant against the 3rd Respondent
Judges
AN Makau
Legal Topics
Unlawful Termination, Procedural Fairness, Remedies for Dismissal
Source Language
English
Employment and Labour Unlawful Termination Procedural Fairness Remedies for Dismissal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abraham Gitonga Mutungi

Applicant

The Permanent Secretary Provincial Administration & Internal Security

Respondent

District Commissioner Meru Central District

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was lawfully dismissed from employment as Chief.
  2. 2 If the dismissal was unlawful, what remedies the Claimant is entitled to.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant was dismissed on frivolous and baseless grounds, as confirmed by the District Commissioner's investigation. The Claimant provided satisfactory explanations to the accusations and was not afforded a fair hearing. However, since the dismissal occurred under the repealed Employment Act Cap 226, the Claimant could not benefit from the current provisions on reinstatement or damages under Section 49(1)(c). The court held that the Claimant was entitled to recover his unpaid salary for the period of suspension, as the suspension was not merited, together with costs and interest, but not reinstatement or additional damages under the newer Act.

Court Disposition

judgment for the Claimant against the 3rd Respondent

Orders

  • Payment of Kshs. 539,514 as withheld salary to the Claimant.
  • Interest on the sum at court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full.