[2018] KEELRC 1442 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1442 (KLR)

The court found that the claimants' terminations occurred in February 2008, prior to the commencement of the current Employment Act. At that time, the repealed Employment Act governed employment relationships and did not require a disciplinary hearing before termination, nor did it provide remedies for unfair...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1442 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Henry Oviyo & 4 Others; Respondent: Nairobi Bottlers Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 468N of 2009
Procedural Posture
Employment Claim / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed
Judges
DI Wasike
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Disciplinary Procedure, Retrospective Application, Employment Contracts
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Disciplinary Procedure Retrospective Application Employment Contracts

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Oviyo & 4 Others

Applicant

Nairobi Bottlers Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Claim / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were unfairly terminated by the respondent under the applicable law at the time.
  2. 2 Whether the remedies under the current Employment Act could be applied retrospectively to the claimants' cases.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimants' terminations occurred in February 2008, prior to the commencement of the current Employment Act. At that time, the repealed Employment Act governed employment relationships and did not require a disciplinary hearing before termination, nor did it provide remedies for unfair termination. The court held that the remedies sought by the claimants were based on a statute that was not in force when their causes of action accrued, and there was no provision for retrospective application of the new Act. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the remedies sought, and the claims were dismissed.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed with no order as to costs.