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

Kundu v China Jiangxi International Kenya Limited (Cause 767 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 317 (KLR) (15 February 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KEELRC 317 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
317
Citation
[2024] KEELRC 317 (KLR)
Decided
15 February 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

TypeUnlawful and Unfair DismissalPostureAppeal from original trialCoramMN NDUMA
The claimant was not summarily dismissed but absconded work upon assaulting his foreman. The claim for unlawful and unfair dismissal lacks merit and is dismissed.

Facts

Claimant James Barasa Kundu was dismissed by respondent China Jiangxi International Kenya Limited on October 3, 2017, without notice or a disciplinary hearing. He claimed he was dismissed unceremoniously due to an assault on a foreman, but the respondent claimed he absconded work.

Issues

  • whether the claimant was summarily dismissed from work unlawfully or absconded work upon assaulting a foreman
  • whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought

Reasoning

The court found the respondent's account more credible, concluding the claimant absconded work after assaulting his foreman.

Outcome

Claim dismissed, claimant awarded Ksh. 17,130 with interest and 30 days' salary in lieu of untaken leave days.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Claimant awarded Ksh. 17,130 with interest and 30 days' salary in lieu of untaken leave days

Remedies

  • Ksh. 17,130 with interest and 30 days' salary in lieu of untaken leave days

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act 2007
  • Evidence Act Cap 80
⚠ 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