[2018] KEELRC 2340 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 2340 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he was employed by the respondent from 4th September 2010 and worked continuously until his summary dismissal. The respondent failed to rebut the claimant's evidence or provide documentation. The dismissal was effected without valid...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 2340 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Franklin Kaime Wanyoike; Respondent: China CAMC Engineering Co. Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 909 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the claimant
Judges
MN Nduma, DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Wrongful Dismissal, Terminal Benefits, Summary Dismissal, Compensation Assessment
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Wrongful Dismissal Terminal Benefits Summary Dismissal Compensation Assessment

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Franklin Kaime Wanyoike

Claimant

China CAMC Engineering Co. Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was wrongfully and unfairly dismissed from employment.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to terminal benefits including notice pay, service pay, and compensation for untaken leave.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal under the Employment Act, 2007.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he was employed by the respondent from 4th September 2010 and worked continuously until his summary dismissal. The respondent failed to rebut the claimant's evidence or provide documentation. The dismissal was effected without valid reason and without following fair procedure, violating sections 41, 43, and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007. The claimant was not paid NSSF, was denied annual leave, and was not paid terminal benefits. The court held that the claimant was entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal, notice pay, service pay, and payment for untaken leave days. The claim for house allowance was...

Court Disposition

judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Respondent to pay claimant Kshs.78,000 as compensation for unfair dismissal.
  • Respondent to pay claimant Kshs.13,000 as notice pay.