[2018] KEELRC 2137 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 2137 (KLR)

The court found that while the respondent had a valid reason for terminating the claimant's employment (financial difficulties), it failed to follow the mandatory redundancy procedures under section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007. The respondent admitted that the claimant was not at fault and that no redundancy...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 2137 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Edith Wagithi Munene; Respondent: Acacia Medical Centre Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1572 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the claimant
Judges
MN Nduma, DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Redundancy Procedure, Compensation for Termination, Notice Pay, Arrears of Salary
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Redundancy Procedure Compensation for Termination Notice Pay Arrears of Salary

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

Parties

Edith Wagithi Munene

Claimant

Acacia Medical Centre Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the claimant was for a valid reason and in terms of a fair procedure.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought including compensation, notice pay, and arrears of salary.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the respondent had a valid reason for terminating the claimant's employment (financial difficulties), it failed to follow the mandatory redundancy procedures under section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007. The respondent admitted that the claimant was not at fault and that no redundancy procedures were followed. The court held that the termination was therefore procedurally unfair and in violation of sections 40, 41, and 45 of the Act. The claimant was entitled to compensation for unfair termination, payment in lieu of notice, and arrears of salary. The claim for rent was dismissed for lack of proof. The court awarded the claimant three months' salary as...

Court Disposition

judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • The respondent shall pay the claimant Kshs.75,000 being three months' salary as compensation for unfair termination.
  • The respondent shall pay the claimant Kshs.25,000 in lieu of notice.