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

Ambutsi v Riley Services Limited (Cause 225 of 2018) [2022] KEELRC 1453 (KLR) (9 June 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELRC 1453 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1453
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 1453 (KLR)
Decided
9 June 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePostureClaimant v RespondentCoramAGNES KITIKU NZEI
Holding

Claimant awarded compensation for unfair termination of employment, one month salary in lieu of notice, leave allowance for four years, December 2017 salary, and uniform refund.

Facts

Claimant Isaac Mugalavai Ambutsi sued Respondent Riley Services Limited for unfair termination of employment, salary arrears, leave allowance, and uniform refund. The claimant alleged the termination was unfair and unprocedural, and that he was not paid December 2017 salary or refunded uniform deductions.

Issues

  1. Unfair termination of employment
  2. Salary arrears
  3. Leave allowance
  4. Uniform refund

Reasoning

Claimant proved he worked from June 2013 to December 24, 2017, and the respondent failed to pay December 2017 salary and refund uniform deductions. The claimant was awarded leave allowance for four years.

Outcome

Claimant wins

Orders

  • Compensation for unfair termination of employment
  • One month salary in lieu of notice
  • Leave allowance for four years
  • December 2017 salary
  • Uniform refund

Remedies

  • Compensation for unfair termination of employment
  • One month salary in lieu of notice
  • Leave allowance for four years
  • December 2017 salary
  • Uniform refund

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act 2007
  • Legal Notice No 24 (Protective Security Services Order, 1998)
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