[2017] KEELRC 1308 (KLR)
The court found that the claimants were dismissed without notice, without a valid reason, and without being given an opportunity to explain or defend themselves. The respondent failed to respond or attend court, and the claimants' evidence was unchallenged. The court held that the dismissal was both unlawful and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 1308 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Robert Kipkemboi Kirwa; Applicant: Patrick Isaac Injendi; Respondent: Bidco Oil Refineries Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1916 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Formal Proof, Undefended Hearing, Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the claimants; claim allowed as prayed.
- Legal Topics
- Constructive Dismissal, Summary Dismissal, Terminal Benefits, Compensation for Unfair 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
Robert Kipkemboi Kirwa
Applicant
Patrick Isaac Injendi
Applicant
Bidco Oil Refineries Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Formal Proof, Undefended Hearing, Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimants were constructively and summarily dismissed unlawfully and unfairly.
- 2 Whether the claimants are entitled to terminal benefits and compensation under the Employment Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimants were dismissed without notice, without a valid reason, and without being given an opportunity to explain or defend themselves. The respondent failed to respond or attend court, and the claimants' evidence was unchallenged. The court held that the dismissal was both unlawful and unfair, entitling the claimants to terminal benefits and compensation as provided under the Employment Act. The court awarded each claimant payment in lieu of notice, service gratuity, leave pay, and compensation equivalent to five and four months' salary respectively, based on their years of service.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the claimants; claim allowed as prayed.
Orders
- 1st claimant awarded KES 178,640.
- 2nd claimant awarded KES 145,464.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
45 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1916 OF 2011
ROBERT KIPKEMBOI KIRWA…………………1ST CLAIMANT
PARTICK ISAAC INJENDI…….……………..…2ND CLAIMANT
VERSUS
BIDCO OIL REFINERIES LIMITED….….…....…..RESPONDENT
Mr. Namada for claimants
JUDGMENT
1. The suit was commenced vide a memorandum of claim on 15th November 2011 seeking maximum compensation for unlawful constructive summary dismissal of the claimants by the respondent.
2. The particulars of claim are set out in the memorandum of claim as follows;
3. The 1st and 2nd cliamants worked for respondent as general workers from December 2005 and August 2007 respectively each earning a monthly salary of Kshs.12,760/=.
4. That in July 2011, the supervisor did not assign the claimants any work. The claimants sought to know why but the supervisor declined to listen to them. The two reported to the Head of packing department.
5. The two found a report by the supervisor to the effect, they had incited other employees not to work and to go on strike. The claimants denied these allegations.
6. The Head of department and Head of human resource department declined to listen to the claimants and the two were chased out of the respondent’s premises and their employment cards were confiscated.
7. The claimants state that the conduct by the respondent amounted to constructive summary dismissal unlawfully and unfairly and each claim as follows;
1st Claimant
(a) Kshs.12,760/= in lieu of one month’s salary.
(b) Service gratuity for 5 years calculated as follows;
( x 12,760 x 5) = Kshs.38,280/=
(c) Payment in lieu of leave days not taken for 5 years Kshs.63,800/=
(d) Compensation
2nd Claimant
(a) Kshs.12,760/= in lieu of one month’s salary.
(b) Service gratuity for 4 years calculated as follows;
( x 12,760 x 4) = Kshs.30,624/=
(c) Payment in lieu of leave days not taken for 4 years Kshs.51,040/=
(d) Compensation
8. The claimants served demand notice but the respondent did not heed the same.
9. The claimants pray that the suit be allowed with interest from date of filing suit till payment in full and costs.
10. The respondent did not file a response to the memorandum of claim and did not attend court in spite of service of the statement of claim and summons on them.
11. Musinga and Company Advocates filed a notice of appointment dated 2nd February 2012 and did not take any further action. Notices were served on Musinga and Company Advocates on 6th November 2012, on 7th August 2013, on 2nd January 2014, on 30th January 2014, on 16th December 2014 and 22nd July 2015 on which dates, the firm acknowledged receipt of various notices but did not attend court.
12. The matter was set down for formal proof on 17th Janaury 2017 and it duly proceeded undefended.
13. The claimants have proved the particulars of claim on a balance of probability and the court finds the respondent liable to pay the terminal benefits set out in the memorandum of claim and in this judgment and awards the claimants accordingly.
14. With regard to compensation, the court finds that the summary dismissal of the claimants unlawfully and unfairly has been proved on a balance of probability in that they were dismissed without notice, without a valid reason and without being given opportunity to explain or defend themselves.
15. The claimants had served the respondents for 5 years and 4 years respectively and had no adverse record. They wished to continue working but were denied the opportunity. We’re not paid any terminal benefits upon termination and they suffered loss and damage and the court awards each one of them five (5) months’ and four (4) months’ salary respectively as compensation in terms of Section 49 of the Employment Act, in the sum of Kshs.63,800/= and Kshs.51,040/= respectively.
16. The court enters judgment in favour of;
(a) 1st claimant in the sum of Kshs.178,640/=
(b) 2nd claimant in the sum of Kshs.145,464/=
(c) Interest at court rates from date of judgment till payment in full.
(d) Costs to follow the outcome.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 5th day of May 2017
MATHEWS NDERI NDUMA
PRINCIPAL JUDGE