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

Paul Ochieng Michael v Nairobi Aviation College [2019] KEELRC 1170 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 1170 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1170
Citation
[2019] KEELRC 1170 (KLR)
Decided
5 July 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

TypeUnfair Termination and Breach of ContractPostureAppeal from an original trial decisionCoramRadido Stephen
The Court finds the termination on account of redundancy unfair and the Respondent in breach of contract.

Facts

The Claimant, Paul Ochieng Michael, was terminated from his employment with Nairobi Aviation College on account of redundancy. The Respondent claimed the termination was justified due to economic difficulties, but the Claimant alleged unfair termination and breach of contract.

Issues

  • Whether the termination on account of redundancy was unfair
  • Whether there was breach of contract
  • Appropriate remedies/orders

Reasoning

The Court ruled that the termination was procedurally unfair due to lack of advance notice and selection criteria, and that the Respondent failed to pay salary arrears and provide pay records.

Outcome

The Claimant is awarded pay in lieu of notice, compensation, and salary arrears totaling Kshs 575,697.

Orders

  • Claimant awarded Kshs 20,000 in pay in lieu of notice
  • Claimant awarded Kshs 200,000 in compensation
  • Claimant awarded Kshs 355,697 in salary arrears

Remedies

  • Severance pay
  • Pay in lieu of notice
  • Compensation
  • Salary arrears

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act, 2007
Cases cited (1)
  • Thomas De La Rue v David Opondo Omutelema (2013) 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