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

Transport Workers Union (K) v Roy Parcel Services Limited (Cause E992 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 3407 (KLR) (27 November 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEELRC 3407 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
3407
Citation
[2025] KEELRC 3407 (KLR)
Decided
27 November 2025
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

TypeEmployment DisputePostureClaimant's appeal against unfair dismissal and terminal benefits, Respondent's counterclaim for damages and costsCoramJW KELI, Ladyship Nyamweya P., Lordship Waweru
The court found the termination of the employment of the grievants to be unfair and ordered the Respondent to pay the terminal benefits as recommended by the Ministry of Labour.

Facts

The Claimant, Transport Workers Union (K), filed a lawsuit against the Respondent, Roy Parcel Services Limited, alleging unfair dismissal and seeking terminal benefits for five grievants. The Respondent filed a counterclaim for damages and costs.

Issues

  • Whether the termination of the employment of the grievants was proved on a balance of probabilities as unfair
  • Whether the grievants were entitled to relief sought
  • Whether the counterclaim was merited

Reasoning

The court determined that the termination was unfair based on the evidence presented and the grievants' union membership.

Outcome

The court upheld the claimant's claims and dismissed the respondent's counterclaim.

Orders

  • The Respondent be ordered to pay each individual Grievant his/her lawful terminal benefits as recommended by the Ministry of Labour

Remedies

  • Payment of terminal benefits as recommended by the Ministry of Labour

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Section 45 (2) of the Employment Act
⚠ 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 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case