KAYITABA vs. WOMEN FOR WOMEN INTERNATIONAL

KAYITABA vs. WOMEN FOR WOMEN INTERNATIONAL

The applicant was not dismissed for gross misconduct as defined by law; the employer failed to prove the alleged misconduct met the legal threshold and did not follow proper procedures. Therefore, the dismissal was unlawful, entitling the applicant to damages, severance, notice pay, and partial salary for February...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RS/INJUST/RSOC 00003/2022/CA
Parties
Applicant: Kayitaba Mukunde Eugénie; Respondent: Women for Women International
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
12 December 2023
Case Number
RS/INJUST/RSOC 00003/2022/CA
Procedural Posture
Labour Dispute / Employment Termination / Appeal (court of Appeal) Following Review for Injustice
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; applicant awarded damages and related claims.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Dismissal, Summary Dismissal, Severance Pay, Notice Period, Employment Contract, Damages for Wrongful Termination, Procedural Fairness in Dismissal
Source Language
rw
Labour Law Unlawful Dismissal Summary Dismissal Severance Pay Notice Period Employment Contract Damages for Wrongful Termination Procedural Fairness in Dismissal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kayitaba Mukunde Eugénie

Applicant

Women for Women International

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Dispute / Employment Termination / Appeal (court of Appeal) Following Review for Injustice

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was dismissed for gross misconduct as defined by law
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal complied with legal procedures for summary termination
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to damages, severance, notice pay, and other claims

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not dismissed for gross misconduct as defined by law; the employer failed to prove the alleged misconduct met the legal threshold and did not follow proper procedures. Therefore, the dismissal was unlawful, entitling the applicant to damages, severance, notice pay, and partial salary for February 2012.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; applicant awarded damages and related claims.

Orders

  • Women for Women International to pay applicant RWF 4,560,000 as damages for unlawful dismissal (6 months' net salary)
  • Women for Women International to pay RWF 760,000 as severance pay