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

Francis Ngunjiri Mukoma v Roben Aberdare (K) Limited (Cause 231 of 2015) [2016] KEELRC 593 (KLR) (14 October 2016) (Judgment)

[2016] KEELRC 593 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
593
Citation
[2016] KEELRC 593 (KLR)
Decided
14 October 2016
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

TypeUnlawful DismissalPostureAppeal from a decision of the Employment and Labour Relations CourtCoramBYRAM ONGAYA
The court finds that the termination was within the probationary contractual term and the claimant is awarded Kshs.5, 494.00 in lieu of notice.

Facts

The claimant, Francis Ngunjiri Mukoma, was employed as a lorry driver by Roben Aberdare (K) Limited on December 8, 2012. On March 27, 2013, he was involved in a road traffic accident and was on sick leave from March 27 to June 4, 2013. On May 2, 2013, he was terminated by the employer, who claimed he was on probation and did not meet expectations. The claimant denied this and claimed unfair dismissal.

Issues

  • Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair.
  • Whether the claimant was on probationary service or need basis.

Reasoning

The court applies the Employment Act, 2007, and finds that the probationary period was for 3 months, ending around May 14, 2013. The claimant's evidence on 3 months' pay was inconsistent and not established on a balance of probability.

Outcome

Judgment for the claimant for Kshs.5, 494.00 in lieu of notice and costs.

Orders

  • The respondent to pay the claimant Kshs.5, 494.00 by November 1, 2016.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the suit.

Remedies

  • Payment of Kshs.5, 494.00 in lieu of notice.

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