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

Pius Kipruto Keter v Fanikiwa Limited [2014] KEELRC 1128 (KLR)

[2014] KEELRC 1128 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1128
Citation
[2014] KEELRC 1128 (KLR)
Decided
11 July 2014
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeIndustrial DisputePostureAppeal from the original trialCoramBYRAM ONGAYA
The court finds the claimant's account of the termination more credible than the respondent's. The claimant is entitled to Kshs.8,000.00 as pay in lieu of notice, and Kshs.200,000.00 in service pay.

Facts

The claimant, Pius Kipruto Keter, was employed by Fanikiwa Limited as a security officer from April 24, 2001 to August 28, 2013. On August 28, 2013, the respondent's director terminated the claimant's employment without notice.

Issues

  • Whether the termination was unfair.
  • Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies as prayed for.

Reasoning

The court finds the claimant's account credible and the termination unfair. The claimant is entitled to pay in lieu of notice and service pay, but not reinstatement or compensation for annual leave and overtime.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the claimant.

Orders

  • The respondent to pay the claimant Kshs.200,000.00 by 1.09.2014, failing, interest to be payable at court rates from the date of the judgment till full payment.
  • The respondent to pay costs of the suit.

Remedies

  • Pay in lieu of notice.
  • Service pay.
  • Costs of the suit.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act, 2007
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case