[2019] KEELRC 2209 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 2209 (KLR)

The court found that the Respondent failed to prove that the 1st Claimant was on probation at the time of termination and did not follow due process for termination based on poor performance. For the 2nd and 4th Claimants, the court determined that their termination was on account of redundancy, but the Respondent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 2209 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Makokha Barasa Aggrey; Applicant: James Mwabili Mnyika; Applicant: Jackson Tandara Ngonyo; Applicant: David Maingi Joseph; Respondent: Foremost Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 527 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claim partly allowed for the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Claimants; dismissed for the 3rd Claimant.
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Redundancy Procedure, Compensation for Termination, Notice Pay, Prorata Leave, Employment Contracts
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Redundancy Procedure Compensation for Termination Notice Pay Prorata Leave Employment Contracts

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Makokha Barasa Aggrey

Applicant

James Mwabili Mnyika

Applicant

Jackson Tandara Ngonyo

Applicant

David Maingi Joseph

Applicant

Foremost Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the Claimants. employment was lawful and fair.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants are entitled to the remedies sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent failed to prove that the 1st Claimant was on probation at the time of termination and did not follow due process for termination based on poor performance. For the 2nd and 4th Claimants, the court determined that their termination was on account of redundancy, but the Respondent did not comply with the statutory requirements for redundancy under Section 40 of the Employment Act. The 3rd Claimant's contract ended by effluxion of time and his additional claims were either outside the court's jurisdiction or unsupported. Consequently, the terminations of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Claimants were substantively and procedurally unfair, entitling them to...

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed for the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Claimants; dismissed for the 3rd Claimant.

Orders

  • 1st Claimant awarded KES 230,000 (3 months. salary in compensation and 1 month. salary in lieu of notice).
  • 2nd Claimant awarded KES 112,000 (3 months. salary in compensation and 1 month. salary in lieu of notice).