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

Waweru v Barlcays Bank of Kenya (Cause 748 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 133 (KLR) (20 January 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KEELRC 133 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
133
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 133 (KLR)
Decided
20 January 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

TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from an original trial decisionCoramOCHARO
The dismissal was not procedurally fair as the Claimant was not given sufficient time to prepare for her defense.

Facts

Claimant, Phylis Waweru, was employed by Respondent, Barclays Bank of Kenya, as a cashier from November 3, 2008, to October 13, 2015. She was dismissed on October 13, 2015, and filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful dismissal.

Issues

  • Whether the dismissal was procedurally fair.
  • Whether the dismissal was substantively fair.
  • What reliefs, if any, are available to the Claimant.
  • Who should bear the costs of this suit.

Reasoning

The Employment Act requires procedural fairness in termination of employment. The six days provided to the Claimant were insufficient and contrary to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, violating the principles of natural justice.

Outcome

The dismissal was found to be procedurally unfair.

Remedies

  • A declaration that the dismissal was wrongful.
  • Reinstatement and accrued salaries.
  • Damages for wrongful dismissal.
  • Leave allowance for 2016 and 2017.
  • Salary not paid up to retirement.
  • Gratuity pay.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act, 2007
  • Fair Administrative Actions Act
Cases cited (2)
  • Kori Erick Ng’ang’a v The University of Nairobi
  • Geothermal Development Company Limited v Attorney General & 3 others
⚠ 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