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

Dickson Aluvizia Livasia v Mufate Growers Sacco Ltd [2020] KEELRC 1136 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 1136 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1136
Citation
[2020] KEELRC 1136 (KLR)
Decided
13 May 2020
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from a previous decisionCoramHon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma
Holding

The court finds that the claimant's employment was terminated by the respondent and that the termination was unlawful and unfair.

Facts

The claimant, Dickson Aluvizia Livasia, was employed by Mufate Growers Sacco Ltd as a messenger and cleaner from February 2010. He was initially paid Kshs. 3,000 and later raised to Kshs. 8,000. He took leave in April 2016 and was not recalled until filing a lawsuit. He was not given notice or a certificate of service.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimant's employment was terminated by the respondent and if so, whether termination was lawful and in terms of a fair procedure.
  2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Reasoning

The court finds that the claimant was a protected employee under Section 37 of the Employment Act, 2007, and that his termination was not in accordance with the law and fair procedure.

Outcome

The court finds the termination unlawful and unfair.

Remedies

  • Payment in lieu of leave days not taken for five (5) years.
  • Payment of terminal benefits including notice pay and arrear salary pursuant to the minimum wage regulations applicable.
  • 12 months compensation for unlawful dismissal.
  • Three month notice and arrear salary.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act, 2007
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case