[2022] KEELRC 999 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 999 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimant was employed on a fixed term contract which he fully served until its expiry on 31st December 2015. The confirmation letter did not abrogate or alter the fixed term nature of the contract. The Claimant was duly notified of the contract's impending lapse and did not object. His...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELRC 999 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Kefah Ogechi; Respondent: SOS Children’s Villages (Kenya)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 820 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Fixed Term Contracts, Unlawful Termination, Confirmation of Employment, Discrimination Claims
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Fixed Term Contracts Unlawful Termination Confirmation of Employment Discrimination Claims

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

Kefah Ogechi

Claimant

SOS Children’s Villages (Kenya)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant has made out a case of unlawful termination of employment.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant was employed on a fixed term contract which he fully served until its expiry on 31st December 2015. The confirmation letter did not abrogate or alter the fixed term nature of the contract. The Claimant was duly notified of the contract's impending lapse and did not object. His conduct in the final days of employment, including refusal to take up a temporary transfer and failure to respond to a show cause letter, indicated awareness of the contract's expiry. The court held that there was no unlawful or unfair termination, and the claim of discrimination was unsubstantiated and irrelevant to the contract's expiry. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The Claimant's entire claim is dismissed.
  • Each party will bear their own costs.