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

LC v Sotik Tea Company Limited (Petition E002 of 2020) [2022] KEELRC 563 (KLR) (10 March 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELRC 563 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
563
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 563 (KLR)
Decided
10 March 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePosturePetition for damages and reinstatementCoramONESMUS N MAKAU
Holding

The termination was unfair and discriminatory, and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and compensation.

Facts

The petitioner, Lucy Chepkemoi, was dismissed by Sotik Tea Company Limited due to her visual impairment. She claimed discrimination and sought reinstatement and compensation.

Issues

  1. whether termination of employment based on visual impairment violated non-discrimination, fair labour practices, and fair administrative action
  2. whether termination based on visual impairment could be considered reasonable and fair
  3. whether meeting costs of treatment and continued salary absolved employer from liability for indirect discrimination
  4. whether due process was followed in terminating employment

Reasoning

The court held that termination based on visual impairment was not a valid reason and violated non-discrimination, fair labour practices, and fair administrative action. The petitioner was awarded Kshs. 2,000,000 in general damages.

Outcome

Awarded Kshs. 2,156,000 in total, including notice, compensation, and general damages.

Orders

  • Notice Kshs 26,000
  • Compensation Kshs 130,000
  • General damages Kshs 2,000,000

Remedies

  • Reinstatement
  • Compensation
  • General damages

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Employment Act
  • Persons With Disability Act
  • Constitution of Kenya
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 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case