[2018] KEELRC 1413 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant's termination was not due to her fault but resulted from the respondent's financial difficulties, amounting to redundancy. The respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007, including giving notice to the claimant and the area...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 1413 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Lilian Wachoro Kariuki; Respondent: Summit Health Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1098 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the claimant
- Judges
- B Ongaya
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Redundancy, Compensation for Dismissal, Notice Pay, Severance Pay
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lilian Wachoro Kariuki
Claimant
Summit Health Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair and amounted to redundancy.
- 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and other terminal dues under the Employment Act, 2007.
- 3 Whether the respondent complied with statutory requirements for redundancy under section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant's termination was not due to her fault but resulted from the respondent's financial difficulties, amounting to redundancy. The respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007, including giving notice to the claimant and the area labour officer. The court held that the termination was both procedurally and substantively unfair, as there was no valid reason provided at the time of termination and due process was not followed. The claimant was therefore entitled to compensation for unfair termination, payment of terminal dues, and a certificate of service. The court awarded the claimant Kshs. 480,000.00...
Court Disposition
judgment for the claimant
Orders
- The respondent to pay the claimant Kshs. 765,577.00 by 01.09.2018, failing which interest to run at court rates from 08.06.2016 until full payment.
- The respondent to deliver the certificate of service by 01.08.2018 as per section 51 of the Employment Act, 2007.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1098 OF 2016
LILIAN WACHORO KARIUKI..................................CLAIMANT
- VERSUS -
SUMMIT HEALTH LIMITED.............................. RESPONDENT
(Before Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya on Friday 20th July, 2018)
JUDGMENT
The claimant filed the memorandum of claim on 08. 06. 2016 through Binyenya Thuranira & Company Advocates. The claimant prayed for:
a) One month salary in lieu of notice Kshs. 60,000. 00.
b) Salary for month of January 2016 Kshs. 60,000. 00.
c) Salary for month of February 2016 Kshs.60, 0000. 00.
d) Salary for the 3 days worked in March 2016 Kshs.6, 923. 00.
e) Pay in lieu of untaken leave 1 year 5 months Kshs. 68, 654. 00.
f) Severance pay 30, 000. 00.
g) Damages for wrongful dismissal and unfair termination of employment as per section 49 and 50 of the Employment Act Kshs. 720, 000. 00.
h) Punitive damages.
i) Certificate of service.
j) Costs of the suit.
The memorandum of defence was filed on 09. 07. 2018 through Elkington & Associates. The respondent prayed that the claimant’s suit be dismissed with costs.
It not disputed between the parties that the claimant was employed by the respondent in September 2014 in the Capacity of a clinical officer and at the pay of Kshs.60, 000. 00 per month. The claimant’s case is that on 04. 03. 2016 the respondent abruptly and without a reason terminated the contract of service. The claimant claims that the termination was unfair. On the other hand the respondent’s case is that its business got into hard times and there was a mutual agreement that the claimant and the respondent would part ways and the employment of the claimant was therefore terminated. The respondent states that the agreement was reached with the claimant through the firm of Albert Kamunde & Company Advocates and a settlement was reached for a sum of Kshs. 216, 923. 00. The respondent agreed to pay that money to avoid court process. The suit being filed in bad faith, the same should be dismissed with costs.
First, the evidence is that the parties’ Advocates exchanged correspondence on the matter but did not conclude in an agreement. The correspondence shows that the respondent declined to reach an out of court settlement by failing to reply to the claimant’s final offer of Kshs. 216, 923. 00.
Second, it is clear that the parties separated on account of the respondent’s difficulties not attributable to the claimant. The Court returns that the circumstances of the separation amounted to redundancy and section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007 applied. Taking the evidence into account, it is clear that the respondent failed to serve the one month notice to the claimant and the area labour officer as per section 40 of the Act. The claimant was entitled to lament that the termination was abrupt and without a reason – the issue of the respondent’s difficulty having been disclosed in Court. The Court returns that the termination was unfair for want of a valid reason as at the time of termination as per section 43 of the Act and for want of due process as per section 40 of the Act. It was unfair in procedure and substance. The court has considered the about 1. 5 years of clean service, that the claimant desired to continue in employment, she did not contribute to her predicament, and the termination was abrupt and therefore unfair. Under section 49 of the Act the claimant is awarded Kshs 480,000. 00 being compensation for unfair termination at Kshs.60, 000. 00 per month and for 8 months. The Court has considered the evidence and finds that the claimant is entitled to all other remedies as prayed for under section 40 as dues upon redundancy and further entitled to a certificate of service per section 51 of the Act. Thus the further award is for Kshs.285, 577. 00.
In conclusion judgment is hereby entered for the claimant against the respondent for:
a) The respondent to pay the claimant Kshs.765, 577. 00 by 01. 09. 2018 failing interest to run at court rates from the date of filing of the suit 08. 06. 2016 till the date of full payment.
b) The respondent to deliver the certificate of service by 01. 08. 2018 drawn per section 51 of the Act.
c) The respondent to pay the claimant’s costs of the suit.
Signed, dated and delivered in court at Nairobi this Friday 20th July, 2018.
BYRAM ONGAYA
JUDGE