[2019] KEELRC 1677 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 1677 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent's conduct of keeping the claimant on interdiction and subsequent suspension on half pay for over four years, without concluding disciplinary proceedings or providing a fair hearing, amounted to an unfair labour practice and a violation of the principles of natural justice. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 1677 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: George Ojwok Aluma; Respondent: Lake Victoria North Water Services Board Kakamega-Busia Water Supply; Interested Party: Kakamega County Water & Sanitation Company Limited; Interested Party: County Government of Kakamega; Interested Party: Busia Water & Sanitation Company Limited; Interested Party: County Government of Busia
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 4 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the claimant
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Suspension and Interdiction, Remuneration Entitlement, Natural Justice, Terminal Benefits
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Labour Practice Suspension and Interdiction Remuneration Entitlement Natural Justice Terminal Benefits

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

Parties

George Ojwok Aluma

Claimant

Lake Victoria North Water Services Board Kakamega-Busia Water Supply

Respondent

Kakamega County Water & Sanitation Company Limited

Interested Party

County Government of Kakamega

Interested Party

Busia Water & Sanitation Company Limited

Interested Party

County Government of Busia

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the prolonged interdiction and suspension of the claimant on half pay constituted an unfair labour practice.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to full salary and benefits for the period of interdiction and suspension until retirement.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to terminal benefits calculated on the basis of full salary.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's conduct of keeping the claimant on interdiction and subsequent suspension on half pay for over four years, without concluding disciplinary proceedings or providing a fair hearing, amounted to an unfair labour practice and a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court held that the claimant was entitled to full salary and benefits from the date of interdiction in June 2014 until his retirement on 22nd January 2018. The respondent was ordered to calculate and pay terminal benefits, including pension, based on the claimant's full salary and accrued increments up to the date of retirement. The court further awarded the claimant costs of the...

Court Disposition

judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Payment of full salary (remaining ½ salary) and benefits from the date of interdiction in June 2014 until the date of retirement on 22nd January 2018.
  • The 3rd respondent to calculate terminal benefits, including pension, for the claimant taking into account the full salary and benefits paid up to the date of retirement on 22nd January 2018; computation to be filed in court within 60 days.