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

Edwin Mandela Shuja v Yako Supermarket Ltd [2015] KEELRC 1481 (KLR)

[2015] KEELRC 1481 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1481
Citation
[2015] KEELRC 1481 (KLR)
Decided
6 February 2015
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from an original trial decisionCoramEDWIN MANDELA SHU, Rika
Holding

The Court finds that the Claimant was employed with effect from 2 March 2010 as a General Labourer and the termination of his services was unfair.

Facts

The Claimant, Edwin Mandela Shuja, claimed he was employed by Yako Supermarket Ltd on 2 March 2010 as a Shop Assistant, while the Respondent, Yako Supermarket Ltd, denied this and claimed he was employed on 1 September 2012 as a General Labourer.

Issues

  1. When was Edwin Mandela Shuja employed by Yako Supermarket Ltd?
  2. Whether the Claimant's services were terminated or he absconded from work
  3. If Claimant's services were terminated, whether it was unfair and appropriate relief

Reasoning

The Court found the Claimant's testimony on the effective date of employment to be credible, as evidenced by the National Social Security Fund Provisional Member Statement of Account. The Respondent's witness's testimony was inconsistent with the Claimant's.

Outcome

The Claimant is awarded one month pay in lieu of notice, leave for 2013, and 4 months wages compensation.

Orders

  • One month pay in lieu of notice
  • Leave for 2013
  • 4 months wages compensation

Remedies

  • One month pay in lieu of notice
  • Leave for 2013
  • 4 months wages compensation

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act, 2007
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