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

Rakuomi v Ritz Enterprises Limited (Appeal E099 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 94 (KLR) (20 January 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KEELRC 94 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
94
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 94 (KLR)
Decided
20 January 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppeal from the judgment and orders of the Senior Principal MagistrateCoramSTELLA RUTTO
Holding

The Court found that the dismissal was substantively justified and in line with fair procedure, but denied the appellant's claim for compensation.

Facts

The appellant, Joshua Ouma Rakuomi, was employed as a casual labourer by the respondent, Ritz Enterprises Limited. He was summarily terminated on July 1, 2018, for allegedly stealing three shirts from a sealed carton. The appellant claimed Kshs 233,600 in compensation.

Issues

  1. Whether the summary dismissal of the appellant was substantively justified.
  2. Whether the dismissal was in line with fair procedure.
  3. Whether the appellant is entitled to the remedies sought.

Reasoning

The Court held that the dismissal was substantively justified under the Employment Act due to the appellant's theft of company property. The dismissal was also found to be procedurally fair.

Outcome

Affirmed the dismissal and denied the appellant's claim for compensation.

Orders

  • Award of Kshs 13,000 in lieu of notice pay.
  • Total award of Kshs 91,000.
  • Interest on the award at court rates from the date of the judgment until full payment.
  • Costs of the appeal and the lower court suit in favor of the appellant.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act
  • Civil Procedure Act
Cases cited (2)
  • Abok James Odera t/a A.J Odera & Associates vs John Patrick Machira t/a Machira & Co Advocates
  • Peters vs Sunday Post Ltd
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