[2013] KEELRC 472 (KLR)

[2013] KEELRC 472 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the contractual requirement to issue warnings prior to termination and did not provide notice or pay in lieu of notice as required by law. The claimant was not given any warning letters as stipulated in the contract, making the termination unfair. Although...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEELRC 472 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Teresiah Wanjiru Mathanga; Respondent: Payles Car Hire & Tours Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1042 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant.
Judges
DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Fixed Term Contracts, Notice and Termination, Compensation for Dismissal
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Fixed Term Contracts Notice and Termination Compensation for Dismissal

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

Parties

Teresiah Wanjiru Mathanga

Claimant

Payles Car Hire & Tours Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair for failure to comply with contractual and statutory requirements.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to salary for September 2009, one month's salary in lieu of notice, and compensation for unfair termination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the contractual requirement to issue warnings prior to termination and did not provide notice or pay in lieu of notice as required by law. The claimant was not given any warning letters as stipulated in the contract, making the termination unfair. Although the claimant sought 12 months’ compensation, the court considered the short period of employment (42 days) and the fact that the claimant was still under training, and awarded compensation equivalent to one month’s salary. The court also awarded the claimant her unpaid salary for September 2009 and one month’s salary in lieu of notice, as these were not contested by the respondent.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant.

Orders

  • The respondent shall pay the claimant Kshs.10,000 as salary for September 2009.
  • The respondent shall pay the claimant Kshs.10,000 as one month’s salary in lieu of notice.