[2016] KEELRC 491 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 491 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant was employed by the respondent from 2007 until her summary dismissal in June 2012. The respondent failed to provide notice or reasons for the termination, in violation of Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act 2007. The respondent did not challenge the claim or present any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELRC 491 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Sylvia Bindo Mpita; Respondent: Career Directions [K] Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 344 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim allowed
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Summary Dismissal, Notice Pay, Annual Leave Entitlement, Gratuity, Compensation for Unfair Termination
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Summary Dismissal Notice Pay Annual Leave Entitlement Gratuity Compensation for Unfair Termination

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sylvia Bindo Mpita

Claimant

Career Directions [K] Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's summary dismissal was unfair and unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to notice of termination and reasons for dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to terminal dues including notice pay, annual leave, gratuity, and compensation for unfair termination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant was employed by the respondent from 2007 until her summary dismissal in June 2012. The respondent failed to provide notice or reasons for the termination, in violation of Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act 2007. The respondent did not challenge the claim or present any evidence to the contrary. The court was satisfied that the claimant's evidence was credible and the reliefs sought were merited. Consequently, the court held that the termination was unfair and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant Kshs. 98,910 as particularized in the claim, together with costs.

Court Disposition

claim allowed

Orders

  • Termination was unfair.
  • The respondent shall pay the claimant Kshs. 98,910 as particularized in the judgment.