[2018] KEELRC 1380 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1380 (KLR)

The court found that the Respondent was properly served with the court orders as evidenced by the stamped documents and correspondence with the Deputy Registrar confirming authenticity. The Respondent's claim of non-service was rejected. On the issue of termination, the court held that the Respondent failed to prove...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1380 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Ahmed Mohammed Dagane; Respondent: The County Service Board, Garissa County
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 410 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Review and Enforcement Applications
Outcome
Respondent's application for review denied; Applicant's application for enforcement allowed.
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Unlawful Termination, Salary Arrears, Injunctive Relief, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unlawful Termination Salary Arrears Injunctive Relief Service of Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Ahmed Mohammed Dagane

Applicant

The County Service Board, Garissa County

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Review and Enforcement Applications

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent was properly served with the court orders issued on 21st March 2018.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant was lawfully dismissed by the Respondent on 28th February 2018.
  3. 3 Whether there is new evidence to warrant review of the court's orders dated 21st March 2018.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent was properly served with the court orders as evidenced by the stamped documents and correspondence with the Deputy Registrar confirming authenticity. The Respondent's claim of non-service was rejected. On the issue of termination, the court held that the Respondent failed to prove that the Applicant was lawfully dismissed, as the purported termination letter was not addressed to the Applicant's known address, lacked proof of delivery, and did not bear the Applicant's signature. The court further found that the letter relied upon by the Respondent was not new evidence, as it predated the orders sought to be reviewed. Consequently, there was no sufficient...

Court Disposition

Respondent's application for review denied; Applicant's application for enforcement allowed.

Orders

  • The Respondent's application for review of the court's orders dated 21st March 2018 is denied.
  • The Applicant's application dated 12th April 2018 is allowed.