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

J W N v Securex Agencies (K) Limited [2018] KEELRC 1908 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1908 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1908
Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1908 (KLR)
Decided
8 June 2018
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 DisputePostureClaimant vs RespondentCoramBYRAM ONGAYA
The Court finds the termination unfair and orders the respondent to pay the claimant Kshs.1,105,000 in damages and costs.

Facts

The claimant was employed as a guardette by Securex Agencies (K) Limited. Allegations of improper conduct were made against her, leading to investigations and a parade where she was accused of having sexual relations with a stranger. The claimant was dismissed and later reinstated, but the incident caused her emotional distress and loss of dignity.

Issues

  • Unfair termination
  • Withholding of original academic certificates
  • Violation of human dignity

Reasoning

The Court found that the respondent's conduct, including the supervisor's public humiliation and failure to implement a policy on sexual harassment, violated the claimant's right to human dignity.

Outcome

Claimant wins

Orders

  • Declaration of unfair termination
  • Declaration of unfair withholding of academic certificates
  • Award of Kshs.1,105,000 in damages
  • Payment of costs of the suit

Remedies

  • Damages
  • Costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010
  • Sexual Harassment Act
⚠ 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