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

Boniface Wambugu Wachira v Diocese of Meru Trustees (Registered) t/a St.Theresa Mission Hospital – Kiirua [2017] KEELRC 973 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 973 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
973
Citation
[2017] KEELRC 973 (KLR)
Decided
14 July 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 DismissalPostureClaimant WinsCoramByram Ongaya
The termination was unfair as there was no valid reason for dismissal and the claimant was not given a chance to cross-examine the visitors.

Facts

Claimant was dismissed as a security guard after two ladies visited a patient outside visiting hours. The claimant was suspended and later dismissed for allegedly accepting a bribe. The claimant filed a suit for unfair termination.

Issues

  • Whether signing the discharge note precluded the claimant from filing the suit for unfair termination.
  • Whether the termination was unfair.

Reasoning

The court found that the respondent's actions did not accord the claimant a notice and a hearing as required by the Employment Act, 2007. The court awarded the claimant 6 months' gross salaries for unfair termination.

Outcome

Claimant Wins

Orders

  • 6 months' gross salaries at the rate of the monthly pay as at termination and to pay by 01.09.2017 failing interest at court rates to be payable thereon at court rates till full payment.
  • The respondent to pay the claimant's costs of the suit.

Remedies

  • 6 months' gross salaries

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act, 2007
  • Employment Act, 2003
Cases cited (2)
  • Duncan Mwirigi Arithi –Versus- Jhpiego Kenya [2015] eKLR
  • Simon Muguku Gichuki –Versus- Taifa Sacco Society Limited [2012]eKLR
⚠ 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