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

Omanyo v Chebett & 2 others (Sued as the Office Bearers of, and on Behalf of, and, as Officials of East Africa Petroleum Transporters Association (EAPTA)) (Cause E886 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3022 (KLR) (27 November 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KEELRC 3022 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
3022
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 3022 (KLR)
Decided
27 November 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 TerminationPostureClaimant vs. Respondents (Office Bearers of EAPTA)CoramJK GAKERI, Maraga, Mbaru, Murgor
The court finds that the termination was unfair due to lack of substantively justifiable cause and fair procedure.

Facts

Claimant was employed by EAPTA as Chief Executive Officer from January 2019 to February 2023. He was terminated on February 28, 2023, without salary payment for 9 months. Claimant alleges unfair termination due to non-payment of salary and false allegations.

Issues

  • Whether termination of employment on account of redundancy was unfair
  • Whether the Claimant handed over his duties to the Respondents

Reasoning

The court held that the termination was unfair as the Respondents did not comply with the statutory requirements for redundancy termination, including proper notice and consultation.

Outcome

The court found in favor of the Claimant.

Remedies

  • 120 leave days earned but not taken
  • Severance pay for 4 years
  • Salary in lieu of notice
  • 12 months compensation
  • Certificate of service

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act, 2007
Cases cited (2)
  • Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd & another v Gladys Muthoni & 20 others (2018) eKLR
  • Freight In Time Ltd V Rosebell Wambui Munene (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