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

Naumy Chelangat Birir v Kapkoros Tea Factory Company Limited [2018] KEELRC 1608 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1608 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1608
Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1608 (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 DisputePostureRespondent's Motion to Dismiss with CostsCoramD. K. N. Marete
The court found that the termination of the claimant's employment was wrongful, unfair, and unlawful.

Facts

Claimant Naumy Chelangat Birir was employed by Kapkoros Tea Factory Company Limited from August 1, 1994, to November 30, 2017. He was dismissed without pay of terminal dues and other benefits.

Issues

  • Was there a case of termination of the employment of the claimant by the respondent?
  • Was the termination of the employment of the claimant wrongful, unfair and unlawful?
  • Is the claimant entitled to the relief sought?
  • Who bears the costs of this claim?

Reasoning

The court ruled that the respondent violated sections 41(1), 44(4), and 45(2)(a) and (4)(b) of the Employment Act, 2007 by failing to follow the proper procedures for termination, proving the reason for termination, and providing the claimant with termination notice and leave days.

Outcome

The claimant was awarded compensation totaling Kshs. 1,371,077.4.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the compensation awarded.

Remedies

  • Compensation of Kshs. 1,371,077.4.

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