SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

HELLEN WAIKUNU V DOTSAVVY LIMITED [2013] KEELRC 324 (KLR)

[2013] KEELRC 324 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
324
Citation
[2013] KEELRC 324 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeIndustrial DisputePostureAppeal from an award of the Industrial CourtCoramHon. LADY JUSTICE MAUREEN ONYANGO
Holding

The Court upheld the award and granted the Claimant the orders as per the Industrial Court's decision.

Facts

The Claimant, Helen Waikunu, filed a claim against the Respondent, Dotssavvy Limited, seeking various orders including compensation for loss of employment, interest, and costs. The Industrial Court awarded the Claimant one month's salary in lieu of notice, commission from business brought, salary for 4 days worked in June 2009, and one month's salary as compensation for unlawful loss of employment, totaling Kshs.230,565/57.

Issues

  1. The Award was silent on the issue of Costs
  2. The Claimant seeks review of the award

Reasoning

The Court found that the Claimant suffered unlawful loss of employment and awarded the specified terminal dues. The Court also noted that the award was silent on the issue of costs, but did not address this as it was not raised in the review application.

Outcome

Affirmed

Orders

  • The Claimant suffered unlawful loss of employment
  • The Claimant be paid the following terminal dues: one month’s salary in lieu of notice - Kshs. 35,129/33, commission from business brought - Kshs.155,623/00, salary for 4 days worked in June 2009 - Kshs. 4,683/91, one month’s salary as compensation- Kshs. 35,129/33 for unlawful loss of employment, totaling Kshs.230,565/57
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case