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

Simon Gitau Muravi v Kijabe Limited [2018] KEELRC 1985 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1985 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1985
Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1985 (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

TypeUnfair TerminationPostureClaimant's Unopposed CaseCoramMAUREEN ONYANGO
The Employment Act requires a hearing and valid reason for termination. The claimant was unfairly terminated, and he is awarded compensation and refund.

Facts

Claimant Simon Gitau Muravi was employed by Kijabe Limited as a night security guard from April 1, 2005 to October 2, 2009. He was dismissed on October 2, 2009 for demanding a refund of Kshs.200 deducted from his salary. He reported the matter to the Labour Officer, who recommended one month's salary in lieu of notice and arrears of wages.

Issues

  • Unfair termination
  • Underpayment of wages
  • Compensation for unfair termination

Reasoning

The claimant was dismissed for demanding a refund of a deducted salary, which was not a valid reason for termination. The Employment Act requires a hearing and valid reason for termination. The claimant was not given a hearing and the termination was unfair.

Outcome

The claimant is awarded Kshs.115,210.80 in total, including underpayments, compensation, and refund.

Remedies

  • Compensation of Kshs.29,164
  • Refund of Kshs.200
  • Underpayments of Kshs.85,846.80

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment 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