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

Hudson Mwambogho Rughendo v Brollo Kenya Limited [2022] KEELRC 367 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 367 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
367
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 367 (KLR)
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 AppealCoramBYRAM ONGAYA
The Court finds the termination unfair and awards the claimant 12 months' compensation, a certificate of service, and other monetary claims.

Facts

Claimant Hudson Mwambogho Rughendo was employed as a general fitter by Brollo Kenya Limited from February 2007. He was terminated on May 15, 2017, and claimed underpayment, unfair termination, and other grievances.

Issues

  • Underpayment
  • Unfair Termination
  • Certificate of Service
  • Wages Based on Grade III
  • Termination Notice
  • Annual Leave Pay
  • Service Pay

Reasoning

The Court ruled that the termination was unfair due to underpayment and the designation of the claimant as a casual employee, despite the claimant raising valid grievances.

Outcome

Claimant Hudson Mwambogho Rughendo is awarded 12 months' compensation, a certificate of service, and other monetary claims.

Orders

  • Certificate of service by 01.05.2022
  • Declaration that wages should be based on Grade III
  • Termination of employment was unfair
  • Payment of terminal dues by 02.06.2022
  • Payment of underpayment for days worked in May 2017
  • Payment of costs of the suit

Remedies

  • Certificate of service
  • Wages based on Grade III
  • Termination notice
  • Underpayment for May 2017
  • Service pay
  • Costs of the suit

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act, 2007
  • Regulation of Wages (Wages) (General) (Amendment) Order 2015
⚠ 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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case