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

Patrick Aduka Ahiti v Govinda & Sons (K) Ltd [2016] KEELRC 247 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 247 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
247
Citation
[2016] KEELRC 247 (KLR)
Decided
2 December 2016
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeUnlawful and unfair termination of employmentPostureAppeal from an original trial decision
Holding

The claimant was an employee of the respondent, the termination was unlawful and unfair, and the claimant is entitled to compensation and terminal benefits.

Facts

Claimant Patrick Aduka Ahiti was employed by Govinda & Sons (K) Ltd as a mason for three years. He was terminated without notice or reason, and did not receive terminal benefits. He claimed compensation for unlawful termination and other benefits.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimant was an employee of the respondent or a sub-contractor
  2. Whether the termination of employment was for a valid reason and in terms of a fair procedure
  3. Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought

Reasoning

The court found the claimant was an employee of the respondent, and the termination was without valid reason and without fair procedure. The court awarded compensation for unlawful termination and terminal benefits.

Outcome

Claimant's appeal upheld, compensation awarded

Orders

  • Claimant awarded ten (10) months salary as compensation for unlawful and unfair termination of employment

Remedies

  • Compensation for unlawful termination and terminal benefits

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act No. 11 of 2007
  • Convention No. 158
Cases cited (1)
  • Fred A. Odhiambo vs. The Hon. Attorney General & another [2013] eKLR
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