Employment and Labour Relations Court at Machakos ELRC

ALPHARAMA LIMITED VS BENJAMIN KASYOKI KYULE

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

DEVKI STEEL MILLS VS VINCENT SAKWA MALUNGO

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

JOB MOGAKA KARANI VS I.S.L KENYA LIMITED

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

The Appellant appealed against the Chief Magistrate's Court judgment in ELRC No. 22 of 2019, which found his employment termination fair and awarded him leave allowance and one month's salary in lieu of notice. The Appellant claimed unlawful/unfair dismissal, alleging no hearing, no reason given, and harsh termination after two years of service. The trial court found termination fair, awarding Kshs. 17,617.60 for leave allowance and Kshs. 2,584 for one month's salary in lieu of notice. The Appellant argued the termination was unfair, the payment of Kshs. 10,000 was not consensual, and the court erred in law and fact on the date of employment and termination validity. The court upheld the trial court's decision, finding termination fair and awarding leave allowance and one month's salary in lieu of notice.

PATRICK MUEMA KIEMA VS THE EXPORT PROCESSING ZONES AUTHORITY

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Petitions

The Petitioner, a former supply chain manager at the Respondent (an Export Processing Zone Authority body corporate), challenged summary dismissal after alleging the Respondent failed to provide specific charges, complaints statements, and evidence before the disciplinary hearing. The Petitioner claimed constitutional violations under Articles 27(1), 29(d), (f), 41, 47(1), (2), 232, and 236 of the Constitution, arguing the Respondent violated his rights to fair labour relations, due process, and fair administrative action. The court found the Respondent did not violate the Petitioner’s constitutional rights as the disciplinary process was lawful and the Petitioner’s appeal was received by the Respondent, but the Petitioner was not entitled to costs.