[2019] KEELRC 591 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 591 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant had established the existence of an employment relationship through documentary evidence. The respondent failed to provide any reason or due process for the termination, as required by Sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act. The claimant was summarily informed that there was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 591 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Daniel Malaba Adoga; Respondent: Mohamed Muzeur Shazad t/a Shazad Enterprises
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1117 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; judgment entered for the claimant as specified.
Judges
DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Entitlements, Service Pay, Annual Leave, Compensation for Dismissal
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Procedural Fairness Statutory Entitlements Service Pay Annual Leave Compensation for Dismissal

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Malaba Adoga

Claimant

Mohamed Muzeur Shazad t/a Shazad Enterprises

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether there existed an employment relationship between the claimant and the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was unfairly terminated from employment.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to terminal dues and compensation as claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant had established the existence of an employment relationship through documentary evidence. The respondent failed to provide any reason or due process for the termination, as required by Sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act. The claimant was summarily informed that there was no work for him, which does not constitute a valid reason for termination. The court held that the termination was both procedurally and substantively unfair under Section 45(2) of the Employment Act. The claimant was therefore entitled to salary for December 2015, pay in lieu of notice, service pay for four completed years, pay in lieu of annual leave for four years, and...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; judgment entered for the claimant as specified.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay claimant Kshs.18,000 as salary for December 2015.
  • Respondent to pay claimant Kshs.18,000 as pay in lieu of notice.