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

Isami v Musyoka (Cause 920 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 2663 (KLR) (30 October 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KEELRC 2663 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
2663
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 2663 (KLR)
Decided
30 October 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

TypeLabour DisputePostureClaimant v RespondentCoramBYRAM ONGAYA
Dismissal found not to be unfair, claimant's claims for payment in lieu of notice and damages for unfair termination collapse. Leave pay and service pay claims are declined.

Facts

Claimant Pamela Isami alleged unfair dismissal by Respondent Mary Musyoka, alleging underpayment, unfair labour practices, and breach of natural justice. Respondent denied underpayment and claimed gross misconduct.

Issues

  • Contract of service
  • Fair reasons for dismissal
  • Gross misconduct

Reasoning

Claimant's testimony and the respondent's evidence are consistent, establishing gross misconduct. Service pay is awarded as a reasonable payment.

Outcome

Judgment for respondent to pay claimant Kshs 12,926.55 by 1st December 2023, claimant to receive certificated of service, each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay claimant Kshs 12,926.55 by 1st December 2023
  • Claimant to receive certificated of service by 1st December 2023
  • Each party to bear own costs

Remedies

  • Service pay
  • Certificate of service

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act
  • Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order, 2017
⚠ 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