[2022] KEELRC 779 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 779 (KLR)

The court found that the Respondent failed to afford the Claimants adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against them, in breach of the procedural fairness requirements under Section 41 of the Employment Act. The disciplinary process was rushed and inconclusive, with evidence showing that some Claimants...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELRC 779 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Zachariah Ondieki Maroro and 40 others; Respondent: Lavington Security Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1930 fo 20 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claimants partially succeed; dismissals declared unfair; compensation and notice pay awarded; other claims disallowed.
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Unlawful Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Summary Dismissal, Trade Union Membership, Terminal Dues, Compensation for Wrongful Dismissal
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unlawful Dismissal Procedural Fairness Summary Dismissal Trade Union Membership Terminal Dues Compensation for Wrongful 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zachariah Ondieki Maroro and 40 others

Applicant

Lavington Security Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants were wrongfully dismissed from employment by the Respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants are entitled to the remedies sought, including compensation, notice pay, and terminal dues.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent failed to afford the Claimants adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against them, in breach of the procedural fairness requirements under Section 41 of the Employment Act. The disciplinary process was rushed and inconclusive, with evidence showing that some Claimants were dismissed before they could respond to show cause letters. The Respondent did not establish the charges at the shop floor, rendering the dismissals both substantively and procedurally unfair. Consequently, the court awarded each Claimant six months' salary as compensation and one month's salary in lieu of notice. Claims for house allowance, overtime, and underpayment were...

Court Disposition

Claimants partially succeed; dismissals declared unfair; compensation and notice pay awarded; other claims disallowed.

Orders

  • Each Claimant is awarded six months' salary in compensation.
  • Each Claimant is awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice.