[2013] KEELRC 52 (KLR)

[2013] KEELRC 52 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant was not entitled to severance pay because the respondent had duly registered the grievant with NSSF and remitted all statutory dues, as required by Section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007. The court also determined that the respondent did not owe the claimant any leave days, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEELRC 52 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Transport and Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Duale Transport Services Ltd.
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 448 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Redundancy Procedure, Severance Pay, Notice Pay, Leave Entitlement
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Redundancy Procedure Severance Pay Notice Pay Leave Entitlement

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transport and Allied Workers Union

Applicant

Duale Transport Services Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was entitled to severance pay upon redundancy under Section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was owed salary in lieu of notice and leave days not taken.
  3. 3 Whether the grounds for review of the judgment were meritorious.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant was not entitled to severance pay because the respondent had duly registered the grievant with NSSF and remitted all statutory dues, as required by Section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007. The court also determined that the respondent did not owe the claimant any leave days, and the claim for notice pay had already been settled and awarded in the original judgment. Consequently, the application for review did not meet the threshold for review under Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010, as there was no error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence. The application was therefore dismissed as frivolous and without...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for review dated 15th February, 2013 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.