[2017] KEELRC 1076 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1076 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent failed to provide a valid reason for terminating the claimant's employment three months into a six-month contract, purportedly on grounds of redundancy. The court held that redundancy must be a genuine and gradual process, not an abrupt decision without evidence of economic...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1076 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Joel Kawawa Mwalaulo; Respondent: Cafesserie Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 354 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claim partly allowed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Redundancy Procedure, Notice Pay, Statutory Deductions, Compensation for Termination
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Redundancy Procedure Notice Pay Statutory Deductions Compensation for Termination

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

Parties

Joel Kawawa Mwalaulo

Claimant

Cafesserie Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent followed due process in terminating the claimant on grounds of redundancy.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, notice pay, and remittance of statutory deductions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to provide a valid reason for terminating the claimant's employment three months into a six-month contract, purportedly on grounds of redundancy. The court held that redundancy must be a genuine and gradual process, not an abrupt decision without evidence of economic downturn. The respondent did not adduce evidence to support its claim of business decline, and the manner of termination—calling the claimant at midnight—was inconsistent with fair labour practices. The court concluded the termination was unfair, granted the claimant one month’s salary in lieu of notice and one month’s salary as compensation, but declined to award further damages or...

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed.

Orders

  • It is declared termination was unfair.
  • Respondent to pay claimant 1 month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 20,000 and 1 month salary as compensation for unfair termination at Kshs. 20,000, totaling Kshs. 40,000.