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

Nyonga v China City Company Limited (Appeal E001 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1364 (KLR) (6 June 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KEELRC 1364 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1364
Citation
[2024] KEELRC 1364 (KLR)
Decided
6 June 2024
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

TypeAppealPostureAppeal from the judgment of Hon. M. S. KimaniCoramM. MBARŨ, J
The appeal is dismissed with costs. The appellant's claim for unfair termination of employment is dismissed, and the trial court's findings are upheld.

Facts

The appellant claimed he was employed as a machine operator from January 15, 2018, at a monthly wage of Kshs 12,480. The respondent claimed the employment was from May 16, 2018, as casual laborer at a wage of Kshs 15,885 per month. The appellant did not have a written contract.

Issues

  • Whether employment was properly terminated despite the finding that casual employment converted to term employment.
  • Whether the appellant was underpaid and owed terminal dues.

Reasoning

The court found that the appellant's employment was protected under Section 37 of the Act, and the trial court's finding that there was no unfair termination of employment was correct. The appellant was not entitled to notice pay or compensation as the employment was converted to term employment.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Act
  • Regulation of Wages and Conditions of Employment (General) Order
Cases cited (2)
  • Too v University of Eastern Africa, Baraton (Cause E023 of 2021)
  • Galgalo Jarso Jillo v Agricultural Finance Corporation
⚠ 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