[2019] KEELRC 2225 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 2225 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant was summarily dismissed without being afforded a hearing, in violation of Sections 41, 42, and 45 of the Employment Act 2007. The respondents failed to rebut the claimant's evidence or provide any justification for the dismissal. The court determined that the claimant was underpaid,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 2225 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Peter Okello Okello; Respondent: The Chairman B.O.G St. Luke’s Odiado Secondary School; Respondent: The Secretary Board of Governors St. Luke’s Odiado Secondary School
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 216 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Claim / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the claimant
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Unlawful Dismissal, Summary Dismissal, Minimum Wage, Terminal Benefits, House Allowance, Service Gratuity
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unlawful Dismissal Summary Dismissal Minimum Wage Terminal Benefits House Allowance Service Gratuity

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Okello Okello

Claimant

The Chairman B.O.G St. Luke’s Odiado Secondary School

Respondent

The Secretary Board of Governors St. Luke’s Odiado Secondary School

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Claim / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was unlawfully and unfairly dismissed from employment without a hearing.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to terminal benefits and compensation for unfair dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was underpaid in violation of minimum wage laws.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant was summarily dismissed without being afforded a hearing, in violation of Sections 41, 42, and 45 of the Employment Act 2007. The respondents failed to rebut the claimant's evidence or provide any justification for the dismissal. The court determined that the claimant was underpaid, not paid house allowance, and not granted leave or service gratuity as required by law. The court awarded the claimant compensation for unfair dismissal and all terminal benefits claimed, holding that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair.

Court Disposition

judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • The claimant is awarded compensation of Kshs 40,815 for unfair dismissal.
  • The claimant is awarded terminal benefits totaling Kshs 231,861.50, including notice pay, underpayment, house allowance, leave pay, and service gratuity.