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

Mcrege v Riley Falcon Security Services Ltd (Cause E005 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1732 (KLR) (13 July 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KEELRC 1732 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1732
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 1732 (KLR)
Decided
13 July 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

TypeConstructive DismissalPostureAppeal from a decision of the Employment and Labour Relations CourtCoramCN BAARI
The Court held that the circumstances under which the Claimant resigned do not amount to constructive termination.

Facts

The Claimant, Charles G Amolo Mcrege, was employed by Riley Falcon Security Services Ltd as a Staging Officer in 2010. He was suspended on 5th October, 2020, for parking vehicles at the Respondent's premises without authority. He resigned on 13th October, 2020, alleging frustration from the Respondent's actions. The Respondent claimed the resignation was due to imminent disciplinary action.

Issues

  • Whether the Claimant was constructively terminated.
  • Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Reasoning

The Court defined constructive termination as an employer's creation of working conditions that leave an employee with no choice but to resign. The Court found that the Claimant's resignation was not due to the Respondent's actions but rather his own frustration with the Respondent's actions.

Outcome

The Court dismissed the claim of constructive dismissal.

⚠ 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