Gatoto v Muki Sacco Limited (Cause 45 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 66 (KLR) (24 January 2023) (Judgment)
- Court
- Employment & Labour Relations Court
- Case number
- 66
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 66 (KLR)
- Decided
- 24 January 2023
Summary at a glance
TypeUnfair DismissalPostureAppeal from the original trialCoramHS WASILWA
The Court found the dismissal to be unfair and unjust due to lack of valid reasons. The Claimant was awarded 12 months' salary compensation and 1⁄2 salary during suspension.
Facts
The Claimant, Jimnah Karaba Gatoto, was employed by Muki Sacco Limited as a systems and Network Administration in IT department. He was promoted to Deputy Chief Executive Officer and accused of professional negligence for the loss of Kshs. 1,700,000 due to an attack on the Respondent's software. He was subsequently terminated.
Issues
- Whether the dismissal was fair and just
- Whether the Respondent's counter-claim for Kshs. 1,700,000 was valid
- Whether the Respondent's counter-claim for an outstanding loan of Kshs. 980,199.97 was valid
Reasoning
The Court found that the dismissal was not based on valid reasons and was therefore unfair. The Respondent's counter-claim for Kshs. 1,700,000 was not valid as the fraudsters were also arrested and charged. The Respondent's counter-claim for an outstanding loan was valid.
Outcome
The Claimant was awarded 12 months' salary compensation and 1⁄2 salary during suspension.
Orders
- The Respondent to pay the Claimant 12 months' salary compensation
- The Respondent to pay the Claimant 1⁄2 salary during suspension
- The Respondent to pay the Claimant 8 months' salary compensation
- The Respondent to pay the Claimant the outstanding loan of Kshs. 975,610.98
- The Respondent to pay the Claimant costs of the suit plus interest at Court rates
Remedies
- 12 months' salary compensation
- 1⁄2 salary during suspension
- 8 months' salary compensation
- Outstanding loan of Kshs. 975,610.98
- Costs of the suit plus interest at Court rates
Authorities cited
⚠ 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.
Loading judgment…