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

Dickson Masaku Mbivii v Lavington Security Limited [2017] KEELRC 589 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 589 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
589
Citation
[2017] KEELRC 589 (KLR)
Decided
27 October 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

TypeUnlawful Termination of EmploymentPostureAppeal from an original trial decisionCoramThe presiding judge(s) are not explicitly named in the text.
The termination of the Claimant’s employment was substantively and procedurally unfair, and the Court awards him ten (10) months' salary in compensation.

Facts

The Claimant was employed as a Security Guard by the Respondent. He was suspended on November 8, 2013, and later terminated. The Claimant claimed wrongful termination and sought compensation.

Issues

  • Whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment was lawful and fair
  • Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought

Reasoning

The Court found that the termination was not based on a valid reason and that the mandatory disciplinary procedure was not followed.

Outcome

The Claimant is awarded ten (10) months' salary in compensation, one (1) month's salary in lieu of notice, salary for November 2013, and prorata leave for November 2013.

Orders

  • Award of ten (10) months' salary in compensation
  • Award of one (1) month's salary in lieu of notice
  • Award of salary for November 2013
  • Award of prorata leave for November 2013

Remedies

  • Ten (10) months' salary in compensation
  • One (1) month's salary in lieu of notice
  • Salary for November 2013
  • Prorata leave for November 2013

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