[2018] KEELRC 2071 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 2071 (KLR)

The court found that the Respondent failed to prove a valid reason for the Claimants' dismissal and did not comply with the procedural fairness requirements under the Employment Act. The evidence did not support the Respondent's claim of desertion, and the supervisor could not confirm the circumstances of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 2071 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Benedict Muindi Maithya; Applicant: Kyalo Munyithya; Applicant: John Kakunu; Applicant: Thomas Munywoki; Applicant: Robert Muthangya; Applicant: Allence Azenga; Applicant: Benard Munywoki; Applicant: Patrick Kavoo; Applicant: Mulwa Mwangangi; Applicant: Francis Kithendu; Applicant: David Mutua Martin; Applicant: Boniface Nzila; Respondent: Ashok Umakant J. Dave t/a Daves Catering
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 958 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimants; partial award granted.
Judges
L Ndolo, AN Makau
Legal Topics
Unlawful Termination, Procedural Fairness, Compensation for Dismissal, Leave Entitlements, Service Gratuity
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unlawful Termination Procedural Fairness Compensation for Dismissal Leave Entitlements Service Gratuity

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benedict Muindi Maithya

Applicant

Kyalo Munyithya

Applicant

John Kakunu

Applicant

Thomas Munywoki

Applicant

Robert Muthangya

Applicant

Allence Azenga

Applicant

Benard Munywoki

Applicant

Patrick Kavoo

Applicant

Mulwa Mwangangi

Applicant

Francis Kithendu

Applicant

David Mutua Martin

Applicant

Boniface Nzila

Applicant

Ashok Umakant J. Dave t/a Daves Catering

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants deserted duty or were unlawfully terminated.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants are entitled to the remedies sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent failed to prove a valid reason for the Claimants' dismissal and did not comply with the procedural fairness requirements under the Employment Act. The evidence did not support the Respondent's claim of desertion, and the supervisor could not confirm the circumstances of the Claimants' departure. The court held that the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. As a result, the Claimants were entitled to compensation for unfair termination, payment in lieu of notice, leave pay, and, for those with at least one year of service, service gratuity. Claims for off duty, underpayment, transport allowance, uniform, and public holidays were...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimants; partial award granted.

Orders

  • Each Claimant is awarded three months' salary in compensation for unfair termination.
  • Each Claimant is awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice.