[2019] KEELRC 665 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 665 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant and respondent mutually agreed to vary the resignation notice period, as evidenced by email correspondence and the claimant's conduct, including the handover of company property in early March 2017. The claimant did not work for the respondent beyond March 2017 and was paid salary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 665 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: George John Cardovilis; Respondent: Simba Corporation Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 259 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Judges
AN Makau
Legal Topics
Employment Contracts, Resignation Notice, Salary Disputes, Variation of Terms
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Employment Contracts Resignation Notice Salary Disputes Variation of Terms

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George John Cardovilis

Claimant

Simba Corporation Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to salary for April 2017 after resignation and alleged variation of notice period.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to reimbursement of expenses claimed for April 2017.
  3. 3 Whether there was a valid variation of the resignation notice period by mutual agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant and respondent mutually agreed to vary the resignation notice period, as evidenced by email correspondence and the claimant's conduct, including the handover of company property in early March 2017. The claimant did not work for the respondent beyond March 2017 and was paid salary for March as part of the agreed variation. The claim for April 2017 salary was therefore unsubstantiated. Additionally, the claimant failed to provide proof of the expenses claimed, and thus that portion of the claim also failed. The court concluded that the claimant had not proved his case on a balance of probabilities and dismissed the suit, with each party bearing its own costs.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's suit is dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.