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

Wilfred Samson Mutua v Kenya Wildlife Service [2014] KEELRC 261 (KLR)

[2014] KEELRC 261 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
261
Citation
[2014] KEELRC 261 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from Nairobi High Court Civil case No. 370 of 2008, transferred to Industrial Court of KenyaCoramHON. LADY JUSTICE MAUREEN ONYANGO
Holding

The Court found that the Claimant was lawfully and procedurally employed and that his contract of employment was lawfully and procedurally terminated. The Court also found that the termination was not actuated by malice and that the Claimant is entitled to the 31% gratuity. The Court also found that the Respondent was not in breach of the Employment Contract it had offered the Claimant and that the costs of the suit shall be borne by the Respondent.

Facts

Claimant Wilfred Samson Mutua was employed by Respondent Kenya Wildlife Service on a fixed term contract expiring on 10th November 2006. He was initially employed on 11th November 2003. The Claimant signed a performance contract on 4th August 2005.

Issues

  1. Whether the Claimant was lawfully and procedurally employed by the Respondent.
  2. Whether the Claimant’s contract of employment was lawfully and/or procedurally terminated.
  3. Whether the Claimant’s termination of his employment Contract was actuated by malice.
  4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the 31% gratuity.
  5. Whether the Respondent was in breach of the Employment Contract it had offered the Claimant.
  6. Who shall bear the costs of the suit?

Reasoning

The Court found that the Claimant was lawfully and procedurally employed and that his contract of employment was lawfully and procedurally terminated. The Court also found that the termination was not actuated by malice and that the Claimant is entitled to the 31% gratuity. The Court also found that the Respondent was not in breach of the Employment Contract it had offered the Claimant and that the costs of the suit shall be borne by the Respondent.

Outcome

Claimant's appeal upheld, costs of the suit borne by Respondent

Orders

  • Claimant's appeal upheld
  • Costs of the suit borne by Respondent
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case