[2016] KEELRC 569 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 569 (KLR)

The court found that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence or justification for the termination of the Claimant's employment. No disciplinary process was conducted, and the allegations against the Claimant were not substantiated or put to him for response. The Respondent did not attend the hearing to defend...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELRC 569 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Nicholas Alex Otieno; Respondent: Lustman & Co. [1990] Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 370 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed.
Judges
J Rika
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Procedural Fairness, Compensation for Dismissal, Service Pay, Notice Pay
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Procedural Fairness Compensation for Dismissal Service Pay Notice Pay

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Alex Otieno

Claimant

Lustman & Co. [1990] Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was unfair and unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation for unfair termination, notice pay, and service pay.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent's counterclaim for a loan sum is valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence or justification for the termination of the Claimant's employment. No disciplinary process was conducted, and the allegations against the Claimant were not substantiated or put to him for response. The Respondent did not attend the hearing to defend its position or support its counterclaim. As a result, the court held that the termination was both substantively and procedurally unfair. The Claimant was entitled to compensation for unfair termination, notice pay, and service pay, as the Respondent did not demonstrate the existence of a social security plan or any valid reason for dismissal. The Respondent's counterclaim was...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • A declaration that termination was unfair.
  • Respondent to pay Claimant 10 months’ salary in compensation at Kshs. 110,500.