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 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.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The Kenyan court awarded the claimant unpaid salary for the first contract (Kshs.428,000) and unpaid salary for the second contract (Kshs.4,299,196.44), service pay for four years (Kshs.846,000), and costs with interest at court rates. The court found the claimant entitled to unpaid salary as the respondent failed to pay salaries and allowances under both contracts, but declined to award leave pay as the claimant did not show how the 62 days were calculated. The court also awarded service pay due to the respondent's failure to contribute NSSF or other social security.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
The court dismissed the respondent's Notice of Motion seeking to set aside court orders issued on 13th November 2024, as the respondent was duly served with the court process but failed to respond to the petitioners' motion. The court found the impugned interim orders regular because the respondents were served and attended court through their counsel, who sought 21 days to file a response before the hearing. The respondent's argument that the union was financially unable to comply with the orders due to TSC's failure to remit dues was not relevant to the procedural irregularity. The court held that the respondent was not condemned unheard as they had been served and had the opportunity to respond, thus the motion was dismissed with costs.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
This ruling addresses the 2nd respondent's preliminary objection to a public interest litigation petition filed by the petitioner on behalf of residents of Isiolo County. The court found that the petitioner lacked locus standi to bring the petition as he is not an employer, employee, or party directly involved in the employment relationship, and had not met the public interest litigation threshold under Article 22 of the Constitution. The court also noted that the petitioner failed to file submissions opposing the preliminary objection despite being notified, and the 2nd respondent's objection was allowed with costs declined due to the petition being a public interest litigation. The court ruled that the petition should be struck out as the petitioner lacked jurisdictional standing and did not demonstrate sufficient interest in the labour relationship to invoke the court's jurisdiction.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The court set aside the impugned judgment due to procedural irregularity, finding that the 2nd respondent was not properly served with court process, rendering the judgment irregular under the standard that an irregular judgment must be set aside regardless of the defendant's defense. The court re-opened the case, granted respondents leave to file responses within 14 days, dismissed the objection proceedings as moot, and awarded the claimant throwaway costs of Kshs.10,000. The court concluded that the claimant's failure to prove service of process led to the irregularity, necessitating the set-aside and re-opening of proceedings.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The court reviewed a claimant's application seeking to rectify an error in the impugned judgment. The claimant argued that the net payment of Kshs. 5,712,174.37 should be subject to statutory deductions and that interest on the compensation and salary in lieu of notice should accrue from the date of judgment, not the date of filing the suit. The court found that the judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record—awarding interest from the date of filing the suit instead of the date of judgment—justifying review under Rule 74(1) of the Court’s Rules. The court corrected the judgment to state that interest accrues from the date of judgment and the sum is subject to statutory deductions, while allowing the application for the specified adjustments.