[2020] KEELRC 1130 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 1130 (KLR)

The court found that the claimants were summarily dismissed without notice, notice to show cause, or any hearing, in violation of Sections 36, 41, 43, and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007. The respondent failed to defend the suit, and the claimants' evidence was uncontroverted. The dismissals were motivated by the new...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 1130 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Daniel Rugambwa Mukibii; Applicant: Symplicius Namatsi Opondo; Applicant: Celline Ayieko Olando; Applicant: Winfred Nafula Simiyu; Respondent: Lumboka Medical Services
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 44 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants; compensation and terminal benefits awarded; reinstatement denied.
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Summary Dismissal, Compensation for Dismissal, Notice Pay, Employment Contracts, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Summary Dismissal Compensation for Dismissal Notice Pay Employment Contracts Procedural Fairness

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

Parties

Daniel Rugambwa Mukibii

Applicant

Symplicius Namatsi Opondo

Applicant

Celline Ayieko Olando

Applicant

Winfred Nafula Simiyu

Applicant

Lumboka Medical Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summary dismissal of the claimants was unlawful and unfair under the Employment Act, 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation and terminal benefits for unfair dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether reinstatement is a viable remedy in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimants were summarily dismissed without notice, notice to show cause, or any hearing, in violation of Sections 36, 41, 43, and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007. The respondent failed to defend the suit, and the claimants' evidence was uncontroverted. The dismissals were motivated by the new management's dissatisfaction with the claimants' remuneration and their refusal to accept pay cuts. The court held that the dismissals were unlawful and unfair, entitling the claimants to compensation and terminal benefits under Section 49 of the Employment Act. Given the lapse of over three years since dismissal and the impracticality of reinstatement in a small establishment...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants; compensation and terminal benefits awarded; reinstatement denied.

Orders

  • Each claimant awarded one month salary in lieu of notice.
  • Each claimant awarded six months' salary as compensation for unlawful and unfair dismissal.