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

Wairimu v China Road& Bridge Corporation (K) Limited (Appeal E136 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2382 (KLR) (27 September 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KEELRC 2382 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
2382
Citation
[2024] KEELRC 2382 (KLR)
Decided
27 September 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

TypeAppealPostureFirst AppealCoramNJ ABUODHA
The court agrees with the trial court that the Appellant was the author of his own misfortunes and that the dismissal was procedurally fair. However, the court disagrees with the trial court's award of damages.

Facts

The Appellant, Moses Kionge Wairimu, was employed by the Respondent, China Road & Bridge Corporation (K) Limited. The Appellant left service due to misconduct, and the Respondent terminated his employment. The Appellant appealed the trial court's judgment.

Issues

  • Whether the trial court correctly found that the Appellant was the author of his own misfortunes.
  • Whether this court should interfere with the trial court's discretion on the award of damages.

Reasoning

The court found that the Appellant admitted to causing accidents with the Respondent's vehicles, which led to damages. The court also noted that the Appellant was given a chance to explain the accidents but the explanations were not sufficient. The court held that the dismissal was procedurally fair but disagreed with the award of damages.

Outcome

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Employment Act
  • Section 41
  • Section 43
Cases cited (2)
  • Kenya Union Of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Meru North Farmers Sacco Limited
  • Kenya Revenue Authority & 2 others v Darasa Investments Limited
⚠ 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