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

Onono v Chemartin Tea Company Limited (Cause E013 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1053 (KLR) (28 April 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KEELRC 1053 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1053
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 1053 (KLR)
Decided
28 April 2023
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

TypeUnfair TerminationPostureAppeal from an original trialCoramABUODHA, NJ ABUODHA
The Claimant was terminated unfairly and there was no procedural fairness in the process leading to his termination.

Facts

The Claimant, Alex Ochola Onono, was employed by Chemartin Tea Company Limited as an Estate Accountant. He was terminated after refusing to resign on his own terms. The Respondent claimed the Claimant absconded from work, but the court found this defense unproven.

Issues

  • Whether the Claimant was unfairly terminated
  • Procedural fairness in the termination process
  • Variation of the Claimant's salary

Reasoning

The court found that the Respondent did not demonstrate that the Claimant absconded duty and that the variation of the Claimant's salary was without any basis. The court awarded the Claimant one month's salary in lieu of notice, withheld salaries, and six months' salary as compensation for unfair termination.

Outcome

Claimant wins

Orders

  • Award of one month's salary in lieu of notice
  • Award of withheld salaries
  • Award of six months' salary as compensation for unfair termination
  • Award of costs in the suit

Remedies

  • Compensation for unfair termination
  • Salary in lieu of notice
  • Withheld salaries

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act
Cases cited (1)
  • Simon Mbithi Mbane v Inter Security Services Ltd (2018) eKLR
⚠ 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