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

Naftali Ndumbe Mwangi v Ipsos Limited [2021] KEELRC 883 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 883 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
883
Citation
[2021] KEELRC 883 (KLR)
Decided
27 September 2021
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from an original trial decisionCoramNduma, Rika
Holding

The termination was found to be unfair and unlawful, and the Claimant was awarded damages and costs.

Facts

The Claimant, Naftali Ndumbe Mwangi, was employed by the Respondent, Ipsos Limited, from 26th November 2001 to 15th October 2014. The employment was terminated on 15th October 2014 without a stated reason.

Issues

  1. Whether the termination was unfair and unlawful
  2. Whether the Claimant's constitutional rights were infringed
  3. Whether the Claimant was defamed
  4. Whether the Claimant was terminated through restructuring
  5. Whether the Claimant remained a Director of IPSOS and its affiliates after termination
  6. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought

Reasoning

The Court found that the termination was not based on a valid reason and that the procedural fairness was not followed, as required by the Employment Act, 2007.

Outcome

Affirmed

Orders

  • Award of damages and costs to the Claimant
  • Dismissal of the suit

Remedies

  • Damages and costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act, 2007
Cases cited (4)
  • Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission [2013] eKLR
  • Pamela Nerima Lutta v Mumias Sugar Company Ltd [2017] eKLR
  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Anthony John Njue [2019] eKLR
  • Janet Nyandiko v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2017] eKLR
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