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

David Namu Kariuki v Institute of Policy Analysis and Research [2019] KEELRC 1856 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 1856 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1856
Citation
[2019] KEELRC 1856 (KLR)
Decided
10 April 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 trialCoramBYRAM ONGAYA
The claimant's suit is dismissed, and judgment is entered for the respondent in the amount of Kshs. 2,118,268.00, with costs and the respondent's counterclaim allowed with set off.

Facts

The claimant, David Namu Kariuki, was employed by the respondent, Institute of Policy Analysis and Research (IPAR), as a Finance and Administration Manager. He was dismissed on December 11, 2009, due to gross misconduct. The claimant filed a suit for various compensatory and consequential damages, while the respondent counterclaimed for PAYE penalties and other financial losses.

Issues

  • Why the claimant withheld cheques and made disparaging remarks
  • Whether the claimant's actions caused financial loss to the respondent

Reasoning

The court found that the claimant withheld cheques and made disparaging remarks, which led to financial loss to the respondent. The claimant's actions were found to be gross misconduct.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The respondent to pay the claimant a sum of Kshs. 2,118,268.00 by 01.06.2019
  • The respondent to pay the claimant's costs of the suit
  • The respondent's counterclaim allowed with set off as already computed in this judgment

Remedies

  • Compensatory damages of Kshs. 2,118,268.00
  • Costs of the suit

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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case