[2022] KEELRC 535 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 535 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant failed to prove he was unlawfully dismissed. The evidence, particularly the muster roll, indicated the claimant left employment on 13th March 2015 by desertion, not by summary dismissal as alleged. The claimant’s pleadings were vague, lacking specific figures for damages or notice...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELRC 535 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Paul Otieno Oketch; Respondent: Inter Security Services Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1785 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claim declined except for order for certificate of service.
Judges
J Rika
Legal Topics
Summary Dismissal, Desertion of Duty, Certificate of Service, Unfair Termination, Pleading Requirements
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Summary Dismissal Desertion of Duty Certificate of Service Unfair Termination Pleading Requirements

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Otieno Oketch

Claimant

Inter Security Services Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was unlawfully dismissed by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant deserted employment or was summarily dismissed.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to damages, notice pay, and certificate of service.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant failed to prove he was unlawfully dismissed. The evidence, particularly the muster roll, indicated the claimant left employment on 13th March 2015 by desertion, not by summary dismissal as alleged. The claimant’s pleadings were vague, lacking specific figures for damages or notice pay, and his evidence was inconsistent and unpersuasive. The claim for three months’ salary in lieu of notice was not supported by contract or law. The only merited relief was the statutory right to a certificate of service. Accordingly, the claim was declined except for the order that the respondent issue a certificate of service to the claimant.

Court Disposition

Claim declined except for order for certificate of service.

Orders

  • The claim is declined save for the prayer for certificate of service.
  • No order on costs.