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

Karisa Mody Akiba v Corrugated Sheets Ltd [2019] KEELRC 972 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 972 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
972
Citation
[2019] KEELRC 972 (KLR)
Decided
31 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

TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from a previous decisionCoramJames Rika
The Claim is rejected with no order on the costs as the Claimant failed to discharge his burden of proof under Section 47(5) of the Employment Act and the Respondent offered reinstatement as a remedy.

Facts

The Claimant, Karisa Mody Akiba, was employed as a Weighbridge Clerk by the Respondent, Corrugated Sheets Ltd, on 27th November 2012. He was paid a daily wage of Kshs. 683. The Claimant's contract was terminated on 22nd July 2015, and he filed a Statement of Claim for various claims including public holidays, annual leave, unpaid salary, and compensation.

Issues

  • Whether the termination of the Claimant's contract was fair
  • Whether the Respondent should be held liable for the unpaid salary and other claims

Reasoning

The Court found that the termination was not instigated by the Respondent and that the Claimant did not discharge his burden of proof. The Respondent offered reinstatement as a remedy, which nullified the Claimant's continued demand for terminal benefits and compensation.

Outcome

The Claim is rejected with no order on the costs

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