[2018] KEELRC 741 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 741 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimant was employed by both Respondents, as evidenced by appointment letters and payslips from both entities. The Respondents failed to provide a valid reason for the termination or to follow due process, such as issuing a show cause letter or conducting a fair hearing. The payment of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 741 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: William Otieno Odianya; Respondent: Brand Imports (Africa) Limited; Respondent: Phonelink Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1258 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed for unfair termination.
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Redundancy, Employment Contracts, Remedies for Dismissal
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Redundancy Employment Contracts Remedies 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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Otieno Odianya

Claimant

Brand Imports (Africa) Limited

Respondent

Phonelink Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was employed by both Respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant absconded duty or was declared redundant.
  3. 3 What remedies are available to the Claimant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant was employed by both Respondents, as evidenced by appointment letters and payslips from both entities. The Respondents failed to provide a valid reason for the termination or to follow due process, such as issuing a show cause letter or conducting a fair hearing. The payment of leave arrears and May salary at the time of termination indicated redundancy rather than abscondment. The Respondents' assertion that the Claimant absconded duty was not supported by evidence. Consequently, the court held that the termination was unfair and unjustified under Section 45(2) of the Employment Act, 2007, and awarded the Claimant compensation and other remedies.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed for unfair termination.

Orders

  • Respondents to pay the Claimant 1 month salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 75,000).
  • Respondents to pay the Claimant 8 months’ salary as compensation for unfair termination (Kshs. 600,000).