[2015] KEELRC 1263 (KLR)

[2015] KEELRC 1263 (KLR)

The court found that both parties had evidenced their intention to end the employment relationship during the probationary period, and the precise timing of the respective notices was immaterial. The claimant was entitled to salary for October 2010 as acknowledged by the respondent. The respondent's counterclaim was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELRC 1263 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: David Mutinda Ikothya; Respondent: Mathara Holdings Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1023 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
partly allowed
Legal Topics
Probationary Termination, Employment Contracts, Notice Periods
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Probationary Termination Employment Contracts Notice Periods

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

Parties

David Mutinda Ikothya

Claimant

Mathara Holdings Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was lawfully terminated or resigned during probationary period.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to salary for October 2010.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's counterclaim is merited.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties had evidenced their intention to end the employment relationship during the probationary period, and the precise timing of the respective notices was immaterial. The claimant was entitled to salary for October 2010 as acknowledged by the respondent. The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed for lack of sufficient proof. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

partly allowed

Orders

  • The respondent shall pay the claimant his salary for the month of October 2010.
  • The respondent's counterclaim is dismissed.