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

Otachi v Board of Trustees, Nairobi Pentecostal Church Woodley Campus & 2 others (Cause 897 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 1644 (KLR) (27 May 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELRC 1644 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1644
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 1644 (KLR)
Decided
27 May 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 AppealCoramJAMES RIKA
Termination was declared unfair, and the Respondent is ordered to pay service pay, notice pay, and compensation for unfair termination.

Facts

Claimant was employed as a Messenger by the 1st Respondent from January 2002. His salary was initially Kshs. 3,000 and later improved to Kshs. 6,000. The 1st Respondent is now registered as Christ is the Answer Ministries, incorporating the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. The Claimant was never registered with the N.S.S.F and N.H.I.F, and contributions were not remitted on his account. He was dismissed without notice or cause on 30th January 2015.

Issues

  • Unfair termination
  • Service pay
  • Annual leave
  • House allowance
  • Underpayment of salary

Reasoning

The Court found that the termination was unfair due to the lack of notice and cause, and awarded service pay, notice pay, and compensation for unfair termination.

Outcome

Claimant's appeal upheld, Respondent ordered to pay service pay, notice pay, and compensation for unfair termination.

Orders

  • Service pay at Kshs. 39,000
  • Notice pay at Kshs. 6,000
  • Compensation for unfair termination at Kshs. 72,000
  • Costs to the Claimant
  • Interest allowed at court rates from the date of Judgment till payment is made in full
⚠ 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