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

Arfaan Kasu v Express Travel Group Limited [2017] KEELRC 1048 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1048 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1048
Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1048 (KLR)
Decided
29 June 2017
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

TypeEmployment DisputePostureClaimant's AppealCoramJames Rika
The termination was unfair, and the Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant compensation for unfair termination, notice pay, and salary for 15 days worked in May 2014.

Facts

The Claimant, Arfaan Kasu, was employed by the Respondent, Express Travel Group Limited, as General Manager in Mombasa. He suffered a stroke on January 17, 2014, and was hospitalized. The Respondent transferred him to Nairobi on May 15, 2014, citing exhaustion of sick leave, but he was unable to travel due to his medical condition. The Claimant claimed unfair termination and sought compensation.

Issues

  • Unfair termination
  • Compensation for unfair termination
  • Notice pay
  • Salary for 15 days worked in May 2014
  • Annual leave
  • Pension

Reasoning

The court found the termination unfair due to the Respondent's failure to provide proper notice and support for the Claimant's medical condition. The court also rejected the Respondent's counterclaim.

Outcome

In favor of the Claimant

Orders

  • Termination was unfair
  • The Respondent shall pay the Claimant compensation for unfair termination
  • The Respondent shall pay notice pay
  • The Respondent shall pay salary for 15 days worked in May 2014
  • Costs to the Claimant
  • Interest granted at 14% per annum

Remedies

  • Compensation for unfair termination
  • Notice pay
  • Salary for 15 days worked in May 2014
  • Costs
  • Interest
⚠ 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