[2016] KEELRC 66 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 66 (KLR)

The court found that the Respondent failed to establish a valid reason for terminating the Claimant's employment and did not follow the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007. The Claimant was not given an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations of loss of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELRC 66 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Kennedy Senelwa Ombeva; Respondent: Kevita International Company Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 807 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Final Award
Outcome
Claim partly allowed; Claimant awarded compensation, house allowance, leave pay, interest, and costs.
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Unlawful Termination, Procedural Fairness, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal, House Allowance Entitlement, Leave Pay, Service Pay
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unlawful Termination Procedural Fairness Compensation for Unfair Dismissal House Allowance Entitlement Leave Pay Service Pay

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

Kennedy Senelwa Ombeva

Claimant

Kevita International Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Final Award

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was lawful and fair.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought, including compensation, house allowance, leave pay, and other monetary claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent failed to establish a valid reason for terminating the Claimant's employment and did not follow the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007. The Claimant was not given an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations of loss of company property. The court also held that the Respondent's practice of requiring the Claimant to take leave during the notice period was an unfair labour practice, as notice and leave are distinct entitlements. The court determined that the Claimant's effective date of employment was 12th February 2013, as per the written contract. The Claimant was entitled to compensation for...

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed; Claimant awarded compensation, house allowance, leave pay, interest, and costs.

Orders

  • The Respondent shall pay the Claimant six months' salary in compensation (Kshs. 138,000).
  • The Respondent shall pay house allowance for 12 months (Kshs. 36,000).