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

Gatahi v Simba Fresh Produce Limited (Cause E482 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 772 (KLR) (20 March 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KEELRC 772 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
772
Citation
[2024] KEELRC 772 (KLR)
Decided
20 March 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from an original trialCoramSC RUTTO
Holding

The Court found that the Respondent did not provide specific measurable targets for the Claimant's performance and did not evaluate her against any set targets. The Court held that the termination was unfair.

Facts

Claimant Maria Angeline Wanjiru Gatahi was dismissed by Respondent Simba Fresh Produce Limited on grounds of non-performance. She sought compensation for three months' salary, unlawful deductions, and damages for unlawful termination.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent has proved a justifiable reason to terminate the employment of the Claimant
  2. Whether the Claimant was afforded procedural fairness prior to termination
  3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought

Reasoning

The Court determined that the Respondent failed to prove a justifiable reason for terminating the Claimant's employment and did not provide procedural fairness. The Court also found that the Claimant was not evaluated against any set targets.

Outcome

The Court found the termination to be unfair and ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant three months' salary, unlawful deductions, and damages for unlawful termination.

Orders

  • The Claimant shall be entitled to a Certificate of Service in line with Section 51(1) of the Act

Remedies

  • Three months' salary in lieu of notice
  • Unlawful deductions
  • Damages for unlawful termination

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act (Act)
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya)
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