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

Looremeta v Kenya National Commission for Unesco (KNATCOM) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 226 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 38 (KLR) (25 January 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KEELRC 38 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
38
Citation
[2024] KEELRC 38 (KLR)
Decided
25 January 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment and Labour RelationsPostureAppeal from an original trialCoramMN NDUMA
Holding

The court finds that the claimant was not dismissed on grounds of redundancy and did not follow the mandatory due process provided under Section 40 of the Employment Act. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought.

Facts

The claimant, David Leiyan Looremeta, was employed by the Kenya National Commission for UNESCO (KNATCOM) under a fixed-term contract. The contract expired on 30/3/2020, and KNATCOM did not renew it. The claimant was downgraded and had his position abolished, leading to his termination.

Issues

  1. Whether the contract of employment terminated by euxion of time or the claimant was dismissed on grounds of redundancy.
  2. If dismissed on grounds of redundancy, whether the respondent had valid reasons and followed fair procedure.
  3. Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Reasoning

The court determined that the abolition of the claimant's position did not constitute a premature declaration of redundancy, and the respondent did not follow the mandatory procedures under Section 40 of the Employment Act.

Outcome

The claimant's appeal is dismissed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act 2007
  • Public Service Commission Act 2007
Cases cited (2)
  • Kenya Plantation and Agriculture Workers Union v Harvel Limited (2014) eKLR
  • African Nazarene University v David Muteru and 3 others (2017) eKLR
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