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

Eunice Jeptoo Kirui v Eastern Produce (K) Ltd [2017] KEELRC 1645 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1645 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1645
Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1645 (KLR)
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 DisputePostureAppeal from an original trialCoramD.K.Njagi Marete
The claimant is entitled to one (1) month salary in lieu of notice and leave due but untaken, totaling Kshs.12,490.00, and the cost of the claim shall be borne by the respondent.

Facts

The claimant, Eunice Jeptoo Kirui, was employed by the respondent, Eastern Produce (K) Ltd, as a Tea Picker. She was terminated on 17th January, 2015, and claimed unfair termination. The claimant alleged that her termination was wrongful, unfair, and unlawful, and sought compensation.

Issues

  • Whether the termination of the employment of the claimant was wrongful, unfair and unlawful.
  • Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought.

Reasoning

The court found the claimant's termination to be unlawful and unfair, and ordered compensation. However, the court could not compute compensation for unfair termination due to unclear pay slip data.

Outcome

The claimant's case is allowed.

Orders

  • One (1) month salary in lieu of notice Kshs.12,490.00
  • Leave due but untaken Kshs.12,490.00
  • Costs of the claim shall be borne by the respondent

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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case