[2018] KEELRC 748 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant was dismissed for initiating a legitimate grievance regarding salary increment, which does not constitute an irresponsible or unfounded complaint under section 46(h) of the Employment Act, 2007. The termination was therefore unlawful and unfair. The claimant had served for over 15...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 748 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Silas Okome; Respondent: Panesars Kenya Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 725 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the claimant.
- Judges
- B Ongaya
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Compensation for Dismissal, Service Pay, Annual Leave Entitlement, Notice Pay
- 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
Silas Okome
Claimant
Panesars Kenya Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant was unfairly terminated from employment.
- 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for unfair termination.
- 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to payment in lieu of notice, service pay, annual leave, and other terminal dues.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant was dismissed for initiating a legitimate grievance regarding salary increment, which does not constitute an irresponsible or unfounded complaint under section 46(h) of the Employment Act, 2007. The termination was therefore unlawful and unfair. The claimant had served for over 15 years, did not contribute to the termination, and desired to continue in employment. There were no mitigating factors. The court awarded the claimant maximum compensation for unfair termination, payment in lieu of notice, pay for days worked, service pay, and pay in lieu of annual leave. The claim for house allowance was denied as the pay was consolidated and there was no prior...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the claimant.
Orders
- The respondent shall pay the claimant Kshs.2,184,015.00 by 31.12.2018, failing which interest shall accrue at court rates from the date of judgment until full payment.
- The respondent shall pay the claimant's costs of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO.725 OF 2014
SILAS OKOME.............................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
PANESARS KENYA LIMITED..............................RESPONDENT
(Before Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya on Friday 2nd November, 2018)
JUDGMENT
The claimant filed the memorandum of claim on 06. 05. 2014 in person. Subsequently the claimant appointed Omao Omosa & Company Advocates to act in the matter. The claimant prayed for judgment against the respondent for:
a) Payment of a sum of Kshs. 3, 271, 575. 00 being Kshs.68, 400. 00 one month salary in lieu of notice; 17 days worked in June 22, 575. 00; service pay for 15. 5 years of service Kshs.530, 100. 00; and house allowance Kshs.742, 140. 00.
b) 12 months’ salaries in compensation for unfair termination Kshs. 820, 800. 00.
c) Costs of the suit.
d) Interest.
Despite service the respondent failed to enter appearance, to file a defence, and to attend at the hearing.
The claimant testified that the respondent employed him as a curving carpenter in January 1997 and his last monthly pay was Kshs.68, 400. 00. On 17. 06. 2013 the workers including the claimant demanded that the management considers them for salary increment. The respondent’s director then told the claimant that in view of his claims for salary increment, he should not report at work the following day.
The only issue for determination is whether the claimant is entitled as prayed for. The Court makes the following findings.
a) The claimant was dismissed for initiating a grievance about salary increment which the Court finds that it did not amounted to an irresponsible complaint and it was not without foundation as envisaged in section 46 (h) of the Employment Act, 2007. The Court finds that the reason for termination was unlawful and unfair under the section. The termination was unfair. The claimant had served for over 15 years. He did not contribute to the termination and he desired to continue in employment. There is no mitigating factor before the Court and the claimant is awarded Kshs.820, 800. 00 being maximum compensation under section 49 of the Act and as prayed for.
b) The termination was without notice and the Court returns that the claimant is entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice as prayed for being Kshs. 68, 400. 00.
c) The claimant is entitled to pay for work up to 17. 06. 2013 and is awarded Kshs.22, 575. 00 as prayed for.
d) The claimant’s evidence was that he was not given annual leave throughout the service of 15. 5 years. He is entitled to pay in lieu of annual leave per section 28 of the Act being Kshs.742, 140. 00 as prayed for.
e) The claimant testified that NSSF was remitted for only 2 months and there being no other pension arrangement, the Court awards the claimant service pay Kshs.530, 100. 00 as reasonable in the circumstances of the case and as was prayed for.
f) The parties appear to have agreed upon a consolidated pay. There was no grievance about house allowance throughout the service. The prayer for house allowance will therefore fail.
In conclusion judgment is hereby entered for the claimant against the respondent for:
a) Payment of the sum of Kshs.2, 184, 015. 00 by 31. 12. 2018 failing interest to run at Court rates from the date of this judgment till full payment.
b) The respondent to pay the claimant’s costs of the suit.
Signed, datedanddeliveredin court atNairobithisFriday 2nd November, 2018.
BYRAM ONGAYA
JUDGE