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

Muia v Makupa Transit Shade Limited & another (Cause 4 of 2020) [2022] KEELRC 13007 (KLR) (28 October 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELRC 13007 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
13007
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 13007 (KLR)
Decided
28 October 2022
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeEmployment DisputePostureClaimant's Original ActionCoramBYRAM ONGAYA
The court finds the termination unfair and unlawful, and orders the 1st respondent to pay the claimant Kshs 288,000 and 25% of the claimant's costs.

Facts

Claimant Victoria Muthoni Muia was employed by Makupa Transit Shade Limited from April 10, 2017 to November 27, 2019. She was terminated for calling Davmat Company Limited, a sister company, and the termination was challenged as unfair.

Issues

  • Unfair termination
  • Defamation
  • Character assassination
  • Unpaid terminal dues
  • Counterclaim for damages

Reasoning

The court finds the termination was without valid reason, due notice, and a hearing. The claimant's reputation was injured, and the counterclaim was time-barred.

Outcome

Claimant partially succeeded, 1st respondent ordered to pay Kshs 288,000 and 25% of the claimant's costs.

Orders

  • 1st respondent to pay claimant Kshs 288,000 by December 1, 2022
  • 1st respondent to deliver certificated of service by December 1, 2022
  • 1st respondent to pay 25% of claimant's costs
  • counterclaim dismissed with each party bearing own costs

Remedies

  • Damages for defamation
  • Damages for character assassination
  • House allowance
  • Notice pay in lieu
  • Compensation for 16 years pending retirement age
  • Annual leave for year 2018/2019

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act, 2007
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case