[2019] KEELRC 2496 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written notice of termination or a hearing as required by sections 35(1)(c) and 41 of the Employment Act, 2007. The evidence showed that the claimant was suspended and then summarily terminated without being afforded an opportunity to make...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 2496 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Peter Barasa Wepukhulu; Respondent: Nodor (K) EPZ Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1642 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim allowed in part; termination found unfair; compensation and costs awarded.
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Procedural Fairness, Compensation for Termination
- 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
Peter Barasa Wepukhulu
Claimant
Nodor (K) EPZ Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair.
- 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for unfair termination.
- 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to service pay and leave pay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written notice of termination or a hearing as required by sections 35(1)(c) and 41 of the Employment Act, 2007. The evidence showed that the claimant was suspended and then summarily terminated without being afforded an opportunity to make representations. This amounted to procedural unfairness. The court therefore held that the termination was unfair. However, since the claimant was paid one month’s wage in lieu of notice and had received payment for outstanding leave days, he was not entitled to further relief on those heads. The claimant was also not eligible for service pay due to his contributions to the...
Court Disposition
Claim allowed in part; termination found unfair; compensation and costs awarded.
Orders
- Respondent to pay the claimant compensation of Kshs 62,960/-.
- Respondent to pay the claimant costs of Kshs 30,000/-.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1642 OF 2013
PETER BARASA WEPUKHULU...............................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
NODOR (K) EPZ LIMITED....................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. This Cause was heard on 29 October 2018 and on 6 November 2018. Peter Barasa Wepukhulu (Claimant) testified on his own behalf. Nodor (K) EPZ (Ltd), (Respondent) called a former security supervisor to testify on its behalf.
2. The Claimant filed his submissions on 20 November 2018 while the Respondent filed its submissions on 20 December 2018.
3. The Court has considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions and condensed the Issues for determination as examined herein under.
Whether termination of employment was unfair
4. In terms of section 35(1)(c) of the Employment Act, 2007 a written notice of termination of employment is required if the employee is paid by the month.
5. Section 41 of the Act on the other hand contemplates affording the employee an opportunity to make representations before termination of employment.
6. The Claimant’s testimony that there was no written notice of termination or a hearing as envisaged by the statute was not rebutted. The evidence tendered was that the Claimant was suspended and then called on 22 May 2013 and issued with a letter terminating his employment.
7. The Court therefore concludes that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was tainted with procedural unfairness.
8. With the conclusion on procedural fairness, it is not necessary for the Court to examine whether the Respondent satisfied the test imposed on it by sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007.
Compensation
9. The Claimant served the Respondent for about 5 years, and on account of the length of service, the Court is of the view that the equivalent of 5 months gross wages as compensation would be fair (gross wage was Kshs 12,592/- per month).
10. The Court notes that the Claimant was paid the equivalent of 1 month wage in lieu of notice through the May 2013 pay slip.
Service pay
11. The Claimant’s pay slip produced in Court show he was contributing to the National Social Security Fund, and therefore he is not eligible for service pay by dint of section 35(5) & (6) of the Employment Act, 2007.
Leave pay
12. The Claimant acknowledged payment of 9 outstanding leave days for 2013 and therefore is not entitled to any relief on account of leave.
Conclusion and Orders
13. The Court finds and holds that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was unfair and awards him
(a) Compensation Kshs 62,960/-
14. Claimant to have costs of Kshs 30,000/-.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nairobi on this 25th day of January 2019.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimant Mr. Ndungu instructed by Njogu & Co. Advocates
For Respondent Mr. Mutanda instructed by Gitonga Mureithi & Co. Advocates
Court Assistant Lindsey