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

Annabell Muthoni Wagura v Board of Management Dr.Kamudia High School [2017] KEELRC 666 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 666 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
666
Citation
[2017] KEELRC 666 (KLR)
Decided
13 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

TypeUnfair TerminationPostureClaimant vs Respondent (Board of Management, Dr. Kamudia High School)CoramBYRAM ONGAYA
The termination was unfair as the respondent did not state the reason for termination and the claimant was fit to continue in the respondent's service.

Facts

Claimant was employed as a housekeeper and matron at Dr. Kamudia High School from October 1992. She was terminated on May 30, 2014, without stating the reason for termination. The claimant testified that she had upgraded her qualifications and was fit to continue in the respondent's service.

Issues

  • Whether the termination was unfair
  • Whether the respondent acted within the Employment Act, 2007

Reasoning

The court found that the termination was unfair because the respondent did not state the reason for termination and the claimant was fit to continue in the respondent's service. The court also considered the long clean service of the claimant and her lack of contribution to her termination.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the claimant for the declaration that the termination was unfair and the respondent to pay the claimant Kshs. 95,400.00 by 01.12.2017.

Orders

  • The respondent to pay the claimant Kshs. 95,400.00 by 01.12.2017
  • The respondent to pay the claimant's costs of the suit

Remedies

  • Declaration of unfair termination
  • Payment of Kshs. 95,400.00 by 01.12.2017

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