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

Olang & 49 others v Airtel Networks (k) Limited (Cause 335, 831, 823, 833, 834, 835, 836, 1545, 1546, 1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554 & 1555 of 2016 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEELRC 10 (KLR) (27 April 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELRC 10 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
10
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 10 (KLR)
Decided
27 April 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeUnfair Termination and Unpaid BenefitsPostureAppeal from original trialCoramNZIOKI WA MAKAU
Holding

The Court finds the termination of employment to be illegal, unfair, and inhumane. Each Claimant is entitled to three months' salary as compensation for the unfair termination.

Facts

The Claimants were employees of Airtel Networks (k) Limited who were terminated on account of redundancy. They claimed for reinstatement, severance pay, bonuses, and compensation for lost income.

Issues

  1. Unfair termination
  2. Unpaid bonuses
  3. Unpaid loans
  4. Unpaid car allowances
  5. Unpaid house allowances

Reasoning

The Court held that the termination was illegal and without regard to the Employment Act, which requires proper notice and procedures.

Outcome

Affirmed

Orders

  • Reinstatement of employment for each Claimant
  • Payment of three months' salary as compensation for unfair termination
  • Interest on the compensation at court rates
  • Costs of the consolidated suit

Remedies

  • Reinstatement
  • Compensation for three months' salary
  • Interest on compensation
  • Payment of costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act
Cases cited (1)
  • Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Nicholas Mwenda Mtwaruchiu & 8 Others [2018] 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