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 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 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 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 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 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.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The court determined that the claimant's dismissal was not unfair or unlawful as she squandered her opportunity to defend herself by failing to attend the disciplinary hearing despite being invited. The court found the employer followed fair procedure under the Employment Act and had valid grounds for dismissal based on the claimant's misconduct. The claimant was not entitled to reinstatement, compensation for unfair termination, or other reliefs as the dismissal was lawful. The court also found the service gratuity claim improperly calculated and the provident fund dues unproven.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The court dismissed the applicant's application for urgent orders to compel the respondent to remit Kshs.2,640,000 in unremitted agency fees to the applicant's account. The applicant sought certification as urgent, ex-parte hearing, orders to remit agency fees under a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and deposit the sum pending trial, and costs. The respondent argued it complied with the Cabinet Secretary's order but that the CBA lapsed and members resigned, so it had no obligation to remit fees from resigned members. The court found the sum of Kshs.2,640,000 unproven and premature to grant pending trial, thus dismissing the application and directing the matter for hearing in the main suit.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The claimant sought a declaration that their termination was wrongful, along with compensation for unfair labour practices, unlawful termination, payment in lieu of notice, severance pay, unpaid leave, and costs. The respondent denied liability, asserting valid grounds for dismissal after finding the claimant guilty of misconduct. The court found the claimant’s termination unlawful due to insufficient procedural fairness, as they were not given adequate time to prepare a defense despite being served with a show cause letter. The court ruled in favor of the claimant, ordering compensation for unlawful termination and other reliefs as claimed.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The claimant, employed as Director, Income Generating Unit (IGU) under two-year contracts, alleged that the respondent unlawfully deployed her to a lower position in the Directorate of Research, Innovation, Commercialization and Extension (RICE) without justification, failed to renew her contract despite her application, and discharged her without proper notice or payment of October 2023 salary and gratuity. The claimant sought declarations of unfair deployment and termination, payment of salary, gratuity, and other reliefs, arguing the deployment constituted demotion and constructive dismissal. The respondent admitted the employment but denied breaches of constitutional rights and illegal termination, asserting the contract expired naturally. The court did not specify its decision but the summary focuses on the dispute and allegations.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The court awarded the claimant Kshs.368,468 plus costs of Kshs.76,150. The respondent (Applicant) sought to stay execution of the decree, set aside the judgment, grant leave to defend, and provide costs for the application. The Applicant claimed it was not served with pleadings and summons, while the Claimant maintained electronic service via email and WhatsApp was sufficient. The court found the judgment irregular due to improper service under ELRC Procedure Rules 2016, as electronic service without court leave was not compliant with Rule 12(1). Consequently, the judgment was set aside, the Applicant had 21 days to file pleadings, and was ordered to pay Kshs.15,000 in costs.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The court dismissed the 1st respondent's preliminary objection to the applicant's motion for judicial review, finding that the objection was moot due to the 1st respondent's failure to file submissions within the 14-day period mandated by the court's order dated 23rd July 2024. The court held that the objection was automatically dismissed by operation of law after the 1st respondent did not comply with the deadline, rendering it procedurally premature and without merit. The court allowed the applicant's motion and ordered the 1st respondent to pay costs.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The court found that the respondent unfairly terminated the claimant's employment without valid reason or fair procedure. The claimant was entitled to one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs.28,376.72) and compensation for unfair termination (Kshs.340,520.61) based on 21 years of service. The court declined the claims for unpaid leave allowance, maternity leave, house allowance beyond November 2021, and service pay due to lack of evidence or statutory disqualification under NSSF. The claimant was awarded a certificate of service and interest at court rates.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The claimant sought a declaration of constructive termination of employment, unlawful salary stoppage, and compensation for constitutional rights violations. The respondents denied liability, alleging the claimant absconded duty without proper study leave approval. The court determined the claimant was constructively dismissed due to the respondents' unlawful salary stoppage before disciplinary proceedings, violating constitutional rights under Articles 19, 27, 28, 30, 41, 43, 47, and 50 of the Constitution. The court granted the reliefs sought, including compensation for salary stoppage and other remedies.