[2014] KEELRC 968 (KLR)

[2014] KEELRC 968 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent failed to prove the claimant was a casual employee and did not provide evidence of intermittent work or documentation of employment terms. The respondent also failed to establish a valid reason for termination or to follow fair procedure as required by Sections 41, 43, and 45 of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEELRC 968 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: David Mutemi; Respondent: Hebatullah Brothers Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1997 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Claim / Ex Parte Hearing and Final Award
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; claimant awarded compensation, service pay, leave pay, notice pay, costs, and certificate of service; some claims dismissed.
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Casual Employment Status, Service Pay, Leave Entitlement, Procedural Fairness, Compensation for Termination
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Casual Employment Status Service Pay Leave Entitlement Procedural Fairness Compensation for Termination

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

Parties

David Mutemi

Claimant

Hebatullah Brothers Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Claim / Ex Parte Hearing and Final Award

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a casual employee or entitled to full employment benefits.
  2. 2 Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was substantively and procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, service pay, leave pay, and other terminal dues.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to prove the claimant was a casual employee and did not provide evidence of intermittent work or documentation of employment terms. The respondent also failed to establish a valid reason for termination or to follow fair procedure as required by Sections 41, 43, and 45 of the Employment Act. The allegations of theft were unsupported and not put to the claimant for response. The court accepted the claimant's evidence of continuous employment for nine years and a monthly salary of Kshs. 16,510. The court held the termination was both substantively and procedurally unfair, entitling the claimant to compensation for unfair termination, service pay,...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; claimant awarded compensation, service pay, leave pay, notice pay, costs, and certificate of service; some claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay claimant KES 328,408 subject to statutory deductions.
  • Respondent to issue certificate of service within 21 days.