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

Kennedy Muriithi Riungu v Sanlam Investment Limited [2019] KEELRC 114 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 114 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
114
Citation
[2019] KEELRC 114 (KLR)
Decided
17 December 2019
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 DisputePostureAppeal from the original trial outcomeCoramNzioki wa Makau
The court finds the termination lawful and procedural, and the Claimant's terminal dues computation was proper. The court allows the Claimant's claim for leave computations and awards him Kshs. 1,392,249.40.

Facts

The Claimant, Kennedy Muriithi Riungu, was employed as a Senior Portfolio Manager by the Respondent, Sanlam Investment Limited. He was later promoted to Chief Executive Officer. The Respondent notified the Claimant of his redundancy and issued a letter setting out the terms of the redundancy. The Claimant alleged unfair termination, discrimination, and non-payment of his salary and terminal benefits.

Issues

  • Unlawful termination
  • Discrimination
  • Non-payment of terminal benefits

Reasoning

The court ruled that the termination was lawful and the Claimant's terminal dues were correctly computed. The slight delay in payment was not discriminatory.

Outcome

The court entered judgment for the Claimant for Kshs. 1,392,249.40, costs of the suit, and interest on the sum awarded.

Remedies

  • Kshs. 1,392,249.40
  • Costs of the suit
  • Interest on the sum awarded

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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case