[2024] KEELRC 1159 (KLR)

[2024] KEELRC 1159 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant was employed on a series of fixed-term contracts, the last of which expired on 31st December 2015. There was no evidence of termination by the respondent; rather, the employment relationship ended by effluxion of time as per the contract terms. The respondent produced documentary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELRC 1159 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mutua Jones Ngugi James; Respondent: Tononoka Rolling Mills Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 684 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Judges
DKN Marete
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Wrongful Dismissal, Employment Contracts, Employee Benefits, Fixed Term Contracts
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Wrongful Dismissal Employment Contracts Employee Benefits Fixed Term 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mutua Jones Ngugi James

Applicant

Tononoka Rolling Mills Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether there was a termination of employment of the Claimant by the Respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the termination of employment of the Claimant by the Respondent, if any, was wrongful, unfair and unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant was employed on a series of fixed-term contracts, the last of which expired on 31st December 2015. There was no evidence of termination by the respondent; rather, the employment relationship ended by effluxion of time as per the contract terms. The respondent produced documentary evidence of the contracts, which was not controverted by the claimant. Consequently, the court held that there was no termination of employment by the respondent, and therefore, the claims for wrongful, unfair, or unlawful dismissal, as well as the associated reliefs, could not stand. The claim was dismissed in its entirety.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.