Employment and Labour Relations Court
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
The appellant appealed against the dismissal of her suit alleging unfair termination by the respondent, seeking compensation and terminal dues. The court found that the appellant did not desert her employment but was suspended on half pay due to the respondent's suspension letter dated 9th April 2020, which was later suspended from 1st June 2020 due to financial constraints caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The court held that the suspension did not constitute constructive dismissal or desertion, as the intended disciplinary process was delayed by the pandemic, and the appellant terminated her contract by filing suit on 6th October 2020. The court awarded her full salary from 1st June 2020 to 6th October 2020 and half salary for April and May 2020, but dismissed her claim for unlawful termination and damages.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The court determined that the Respondent's 2023 salary reduction memo was accepted by the Claimant, who received Kshs. 217,841 as terminal benefits after resignation. The court found the Respondent's 21st November 2012 Administrative Policy Handbook (Final Press Copy) was the authentic staff handbook, as it was a completed document with no editing notes. The Claimant was entitled to terminal dues under the handbook, which provided for one month's salary as leave allowance and 15 days' pay per year for gratuity, but the Respondent paid Kshs. 217,841 after the Claimant resigned, which covered the terminal dues including the 15 days' pay for 7 years of service. The court dismissed the Claimant's claims for salary arrears, leave allowance, and gratuity as the Respondent had already paid the terminal dues.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
The appellant moved for dismissal of the respondent’s forgotten suit for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The trial court dismissed the motion, directing the suit to proceed to pre-trial conference and hearing within six weeks. The appellant appealed, arguing the respondent’s three-year delay was inordinate and inexcusable, while the respondent claimed the appellant was precluded from filing the motion due to lack of service. The court found the delay inordinate and inexcusable due to the respondent’s admission of forgetting the suit, and the appellant was not precluded from filing the motion as it was a party to the suit.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
The court considered whether the appellant was the respondent’s employer or a paymaster for the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. The appeal challenged the lower court’s finding that the appellant was the employer and liable for unlawful termination. The court found the appellant was a paymaster, not the employer, as the Ministry terminated the contract, leading to redundancy. The court rejected the respondent’s claim for compensation due to the appellant’s agency relationship with the Ministry and the Arbitral Award confirming the Ministry’s liability.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
The court dismissed the respondent’s Notice of Motion seeking urgent certification, ex-parte hearing, stay of execution, setting aside the March 8, 2024 judgment, and other orders. The respondent claimed it was unaware of proceedings until served with execution documents on November 29, 2024, but the court found it had been served with initial pleadings and entered appearance in the lower court. The court held the motion failed due to the respondent’s admission of service and waiver of rights, as it had been duly served with appeal documents and failed to participate. The motion was dismissed with costs.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
The court granted an application for stay of proceedings in the Chief Magistrates Court at Meru Employment and Labour Relations Court case No. E005 of 2024 between Stanley Mbaabu M’mbui and Flamingo Horticulture Kenya Limited, pending the hearing and determination of an appeal against the lower court's dismissal of the motion. The applicant sought stay to prevent the lower court proceedings from proceeding while the appeal was pending, arguing that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay was not granted. The court found that the appeal was not frivolous and that the application for stay was filed expeditiously, meeting the criteria for granting stay under the principles outlined in William Odhiambo Ramogi v Attorney General (2019) eKLR.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The court dismissed the respondent's motion seeking to strike out the claimant's pleadings, as the claimant's advocate had obtained a practising certificate for 2025 before filing the pleadings on 2nd February 2025. The court found that despite the respondent's argument that the pleadings were invalid under sections 9 and 34 of the Advocates Act, the claimant's advocate had paid the required subscription, received a certificate of good standing, and obtained the practising certificate by 28th February 2025, within the grace period allowed by the Law Society of Kenya. The court followed the precedent in National Bank of Kenya v Anaj Warehousing Limited (2015) KESC 4 (KLR) to hold that pleadings prepared by an advocate without a current practising certificate are valid, as the advocate had a practising certificate for 2024 and the certificate for 2025 was issued within the grace period.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The court set aside a prior judgment against the respondent and granted leave to file a response, awarding throw-away costs of Kshs.15,000 payable within 21 days. The claimant later protested the respondent's failure to pay these costs, but the respondent promised to pay and the suit was fixed for mention on 2nd July 2025. The court noted that the compliance period lapsed without payment or pleadings, and the claimant is now responsible for executing the costs and fixing the suit for hearing.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The court dismissed the respondents' preliminary objection to the judicial review application, ruling that the objection passed muster due to legal issues of form and substance. The court held that the applicant failed to comply with the ELRC Procedure Rules 2024 and Mutunga Rules by not securing leave for judicial review proceedings, not suing as a public entity, and misstating the relief sought. The court struck out the suit with costs, emphasizing that the applicant must file proper pleadings under the rules to enforce constitutional rights.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
The court reviewed a ruling where it adopted a DOSH assessment of Kshs.638,214.05 plus costs and interest. The respondent (judgment debtor) challenged this by seeking to discount Kshs.477,042 from the award, arguing the medical expenses were paid by the employer but not by the respondent. The court found an error on the face of the record because the Replying Affidavit did not show the respondent underwent a second medical examination that reduced the award to Kshs.370,225. The court discounted the disputed sum, ruling that the respondent did not prove payment of the medical expenses, and allowed the motion with each party bearing their own costs.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
The court dismissed the respondent's preliminary objection to the applicant's motion seeking to adopt and enforce a Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA) award made by the Director of Occupational Health and Safety Services (DOSH). The court found jurisdiction to recognize and enforce DOSH awards under section 52(2) of WIBA, citing its authority as the court with jurisdiction over employment and labour relations claims. The court also held that the DOSH/WIBA Form 4, signed by a Senior OSH Officer and stamped by the County OSH Officer, was valid as per section 53 of WIBA, and the respondent failed to challenge or pay the awarded sum of Kshs.16,456,400.64 despite being notified. The court granted the applicant's prayer for costs and interest at court rates.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
The court dismissed the applicant's motion seeking to adopt the original DOSH assessment of Kshs.7,665,641.74 from 17th March 2022, as the respondent had successfully challenged it under section 51 of the WIBA Act, leading to a re-evaluation that reduced the permanent disability from 80% to 60% and the compensation amount to Kshs.4,834,022.40. The court found the original assessment no longer valid due to the successful objection and subsequent review, and struck out the motion without ordering costs since the respondent had not fully settled the new award. The applicant was free to move the court for further relief.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The applicant sought judicial review against the termination of his employment by the 1st respondent, which was upheld by the Public Service Commission. The court granted certiorari to quash the commission's decision, ordered reinstatement to his previous position as Director Supply Chain Management with payment of 12 months' salary for irregular redeployment and redesignation, and prohibited implementation of the termination decision. The court found the termination unlawful due to lack of proper disciplinary process and irregular redeployment, despite the applicant's protest and the commission's award of compensation.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The claimant, a registered trade union representing ECDE Teachers in Meru County, sought orders from the court to compel the 1st and 2nd respondents (county public service board and head of public service) to grade and pay grievants according to the SRC-advised remuneration schemes, pay salary differences, grant annual leave, and declare failures by the SRC and PSC. The court found that the respondents had failed to implement the SRC's circular dated 10 August 2023, which mandated remuneration scales for ECDE teachers based on academic qualifications, and that the grievants were improperly placed in Job Group D without regard to their qualifications. The court ordered the respondents to pay the salary differences and pro-rated annual leave but dismissed the claim for the 10% salary increase as the President's increment did not apply to the grievants.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
The court upheld the termination of the appellant's employment as lawful and fair, finding that the appellant was served with a show cause letter on 19th October 2020 and invited to a disciplinary hearing on 23rd October 2020, but she refused to acknowledge the letter or attend the hearing. The court determined that the termination followed fair procedure and was for a valid reason (repeated misconduct), and the appellant's claim for unfair termination was dismissed with costs.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The claimant sought Kshs.2,340,952 plus interest for unpaid salaries, house allowances, and overtime from the respondent, who had assigned the road construction work from the contractor. The respondent did not appear, so the suit proceeded by formal proof. The court found the claimant failed to prove his case due to lack of specific details in the claim and no documentary evidence supporting the unpaid amounts, dismissing the suit with no costs.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The court determined that the respondents' termination of the claimant's employment contract was unlawful due to the failure to follow fair procedure under the Employment Act. The claimant admitted being 62 years old at appointment, and the contract was entered into after a competitive process while the employer was aware of his age. The respondents failed to provide prior notice or a hearing as required by section 41 of the Employment Act, rendering the termination unfair and unlawful. The court dismissed the respondents' argument that the suit was barred by the doctrine of exhaustion, finding the court had jurisdiction to hear the matter.