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

Kenya Building, Construction, Timber and Furniture Industries Employees v Kartar Singh Dhupar [2020] KEELRC 1846 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 1846 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1846
Citation
[2020] KEELRC 1846 (KLR)
Decided
24 January 2020
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLabor DisputePostureAppeal from a previous decisionCoramNduma
Holding

The court finds that the respondent failed to prove that the grievant was not its employee and that the respondent is the company that was sued, not the father of the witness. The Regulation of Wages (Building Construction Industry) Order, 2004 is still in force.

Facts

The claimant, a trade union, represents a worker (the grievant) who was employed by the respondent as a store keeper. The grievant was terminated on account of pregnancy and seeks terminal dues on her behalf.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimant was unfairly terminated by the respondent on account of pregnancy.
  2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the prayers sought.
  3. The applicable law.

Reasoning

The court considered the pleadings and evidence on record, finding that the respondent did not provide employment records to prove the grievant was not its employee, and that the respondent is the company that was sued.

Outcome

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the respondent to pay the grievant the terminal dues as claimed.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the grievant the terminal dues as claimed.

Remedies

  • Payment of terminal dues as claimed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (4)
  • Employment Act
  • Labour Institutions Act
  • Regulation of Wages (Building Construction Industry) Order, 2004
  • Labour Institutions (Building and Construction Industry) (Wage) Order, 2012
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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case