[2019] KEELRC 905 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 905 (KLR)

The court found that the Respondent failed to meet the standards of fairness required under Sections 41, 43, and 45 of the Employment Act 2007. There was no evidence of a formal performance appraisal, written warnings, or a performance improvement plan prior to the Claimant's termination. The Respondent's reliance...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 905 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Kennedy Sila Makenzi; Respondent: Kwale International Sugar Company Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 483 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claim partly allowed; unfair termination established; compensation awarded; other monetary claims declined.
Judges
J Rika
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Procedural Fairness, Compensation for Termination, Overtime Pay Dispute
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Procedural Fairness Compensation for Termination Overtime Pay Dispute

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kennedy Sila Makenzi

Claimant

Kwale International Sugar Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was unfair under the Employment Act 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant was entitled to compensation for unfair termination.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was entitled to overtime pay and other terminal dues.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent failed to meet the standards of fairness required under Sections 41, 43, and 45 of the Employment Act 2007. There was no evidence of a formal performance appraisal, written warnings, or a performance improvement plan prior to the Claimant's termination. The Respondent's reliance on oral warnings and the absence of documentary evidence undermined its case. The Claimant had previously been recognized for good performance, including a salary increment, and there was no credible evidence of a subsequent decline in performance warranting termination. The court held that the Claimant was not afforded a fair hearing or proper notice, rendering the termination...

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed; unfair termination established; compensation awarded; other monetary claims declined.

Orders

  • It is declared that termination was unfair.
  • The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant equivalent of 8 months’ salary in compensation for unfair termination at Kshs. 633,979.