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

Rita Adhiambo Adhoch v Mwalimu National Savings & Credit Co-operative Society [2022] KEELRC 1032 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 1032 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1032
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 1032 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from an original trial decisionCoramRW2
Holding

The Court finds that the Respondent's disciplinary process satisfied the fairness test enshrined in Section 41 of the Employment Act and Article 47 of the Constitution. The Respondent has proved valid, fair, and justified reasons for dismissing the Claimant.

Facts

The Claimant, Rita Adhiambo Adhoch, was employed by the Respondent, Mwalimu National Savings & Credit Co-operative Society, as a senior clerical officer. She was dismissed on 2nd December, 2014, for reasons of dishonesty, willful neglect of duty, and causing pecuniary loss to the Respondent. She was not given a fair hearing prior to her dismissal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Claimant was wrongfully and unlawfully dismissed
  2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
  3. Who bears the costs of the suit

Reasoning

The Court of Appeal in Pius Machafu Isindu v Lavington Security Guards Limited held that the employer must prove the reasons for dismissal are valid and fair. The Respondent proved that the Claimant caused financial loss and defrauded the Respondent through her actions.

Outcome

The Claimant's dismissal was found to be fair and justified.

Remedies

  • Payment of one-month salary in lieu of notice, overtime pay, gratuity, service pay, and 12 months' salary compensation for loss of employment

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act, 2007
Cases cited (2)
  • Pius Machafu Isindu v Lavington Security Guards Limited (2017) eKLR
  • British Leyland UK Ltd vs Swift (1981) IRLR 91
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