[2018] KEELRC 2251 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 2251 (KLR)

The court found that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence or justification for the termination of the Claimant's employment. There was no proof that the Claimant was heard before termination, nor was there evidence supporting the alleged misconduct. The court held that the termination was unfair under...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 2251 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Lemon Waweru Wanjiru; Respondent: China Road & Bridge Corporation (K) Ltd T/A China Road and Bridge Corporation
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 294 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim partly allowed
Judges
J Rika
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Summary Dismissal, Notice Pay, Compensation for Termination, Certificate of Service
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Summary Dismissal Notice Pay Compensation for Termination Certificate of Service

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lemon Waweru Wanjiru

Claimant

China Road & Bridge Corporation (K) Ltd T/A China Road and Bridge Corporation

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 is entitled to salary in lieu of notice and compensation for unfair termination.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is entitled to annual leave pay and a certificate of service.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence or justification for the termination of the Claimant's employment. There was no proof that the Claimant was heard before termination, nor was there evidence supporting the alleged misconduct. The court held that the termination was unfair under Sections 41, 43, and 45 of the Employment Act 2007. The Claimant, having served for about 11 months, was not eligible for annual leave pay. The court awarded the Claimant one month’s salary in lieu of notice and compensation equivalent to five months’ salary for unfair termination, considering the length of service. The Respondent was also ordered to issue a certificate of service,...

Court Disposition

claim partly allowed

Orders

  • Termination was unfair.
  • Respondent to pay Claimant one month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 32,099.