[2021] KEELRC 1852 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 1852 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant, through uncontroverted evidence, proved entitlement to salary arrears for the period of interdiction, as the respondents failed to attend the hearing or challenge the evidence. The court held that the claimant discharged the burden of proof under Sections 107 and 108 of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 1852 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya National Union of Nurses; Respondent: Ministry of Health; Respondent: Busia County Public Service Board
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 28 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the claimant in part
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Salary Arrears, Wrongful Interdiction, Reinstatement, Burden of Proof, Interest Award
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Salary Arrears Wrongful Interdiction Reinstatement Burden of Proof Interest Award

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya National Union of Nurses

Applicant

Ministry of Health

Respondent

Busia County Public Service Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to payment of salary and allowances in arrears withheld during interdiction period.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to damages for wrongful interdiction.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to costs and interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant, through uncontroverted evidence, proved entitlement to salary arrears for the period of interdiction, as the respondents failed to attend the hearing or challenge the evidence. The court held that the claimant discharged the burden of proof under Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act. However, the claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to justify an award of damages for wrongful interdiction, as the interdiction was lifted and the claimant reinstated. The court determined that the loss from delayed salary would be mitigated by awarding interest on the judgment sum and costs. Judgment was therefore entered for the claimant for the sum of...

Court Disposition

judgment for the claimant in part

Orders

  • Respondents to pay the claimant Kshs.1,102,993.00 as salary arrears.
  • Interest at court rates from the date the interdiction was lifted until payment in full.