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

Kijuu v Hilcrest Investments Limited (Cause 403 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 4156 (KLR) (9 June 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELRC 4156 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
4156
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 4156 (KLR)
Decided
9 June 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 DisputePostureAppeal from an original trial decision
The Court found that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was not procedurally fair due to the lack of a proper notice period as required by the Employment Act, 2007.

Facts

The Claimant, Kijuu, filed a claim against the Respondent, Hilcrest Investments Limited, alleging wrongful termination of employment. The Respondent filed a memorandum of response and a list of documents, and later provided a witness statement.

Issues

  • Whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment was procedurally fair.
  • Whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment was with substantive justification.
  • Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought or any of them.
  • Who should bear the costs of this suit.

Reasoning

The Court determined that the statutory procedure for redundancy terminations, as outlined in Section 40 of the Employment Act, requires a specific period of notice, which was not met in this case.

Outcome

The Court found in favor of the Claimant, ordering procedural fairness in the termination of employment.

Orders

  • Procedural fairness in the termination of employment

Remedies

  • Procedural fairness in the termination of employment

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act, 2007
Cases cited (1)
  • Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers of Kenya
⚠ 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 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case