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

Wilson v Imarisha Mabati Limited (Appeal E023 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 573 (KLR) (9 March 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KEELRC 573 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
573
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 573 (KLR)
Decided
9 March 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppeal from a Judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations CourtCoramCN BAARI
Holding

The Appellant was not on probationary contract and was entitled to procedural fairness and substantive reasons for termination. The Trial Court's award of two months' salary in compensation for unfair termination is upheld.

Facts

Mary Kavindu Wilson was employed by Imarisha Mabati Limited on 14th May, 2018, and placed on a six-month probation. She proceeded on maternity leave on 18th February, 2019, and resumed duty on 15th May, 2019. The Respondent terminated her services on 29th March, 2019, citing poor performance.

Issues

  1. Whether the Appellant was on probationary contract
  2. Whether the Appellant was unfairly terminated
  3. Whether the Appellant was discriminated against
  4. Whether the Trial Court erred in awarding compensation

Reasoning

The Appellant was not on probationary contract and was entitled to procedural fairness and substantive reasons for termination. The Trial Court's award of two months' salary in compensation for unfair termination is upheld.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Employment Act
  • Section 42
  • Section 45
Cases cited (4)
  • Abok James Odera t/a A.J Odera & Associates v John Patrick Machira t/a Machira & Co. Advocates
  • Alphonce Maghanga Mwachanya v Operation 680 Limited
  • Kenya Ports Authority v Festus Kipkorir Kiprotich
  • Kenfreight (E.A.) Limited v Benson K.Nguti
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case