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

Mwangi v Nairobi Academy (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E028 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 663 (KLR) (28 February 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEELRC 663 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
663
Citation
[2025] KEELRC 663 (KLR)
Decided
28 February 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppeal and Cross-AppealCoramJW KELI
Holding

The court found no evidence to support the claims of gross misconduct or absconding, and the disciplinary process was not followed due to the union's compensation demands.

Facts

The Appellant, Mwangi, claimed service gratuity and service pay against the Nairobi Academy. The Nairobi Academy appealed the decision, alleging unfair termination and procedural irregularities.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial court erred in finding unfair termination.
  2. Whether the trial court erred in its findings on the reliefs sought.
  3. Whether the trial court erred in the disciplinary process and procedural fairness.

Reasoning

The court held that the trial court's findings were not supported by evidence and that the disciplinary process was not followed due to the union's focus on compensation.

Outcome

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

Orders

  • The Judgment and Orders of the Honourable N. Ruguru (SPM) delivered at Nairobi on the 2nd February, 2024 in Nairobi ELRC No. 2145 of 2019 be set aside.
  • The Appellant's claim for service gratuity be dismissed.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (3)
  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. [1968] EA 123
  • Boniface Francis Mwangi v BOM Iyego secondary school (2019)
  • Joseph Nzioka v Smart Coatings Limited (2017)
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