Bundu Cafe VS Simon Juma Muriithi
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
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 CourtAppeals
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtMiscellaneous Applications
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The court determined that the claimant’s termination was unfair and unlawful as the respondent failed to prove a valid reason for termination and followed fair procedure. The respondent did not issue a show cause letter or afford the claimant a chance to defend herself, violating Section 45(1) and (2) of the Employment Act. The court found the dismissal lacked procedural fairness and was not justified by the claimant’s conduct, as she admitted minor errors but the respondent did not prove loss of money. The claimant was entitled to terminal dues, NSSF and NHIF deductions, and a certificate of service.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
The court reviewed an appeal against a trial court's award of Kshs.5,700,000 housing allowance to a Deputy Governor who claimed entitlement under SRC circulars. The Appellant argued the Respondent's salary (Kshs.621,250) included housing allowance per Gazette Notice 6518, but the court held SRC circulars on housing benefits were legally binding, requiring the Appellant to provide housing or rent payment. The court found the Appellant failed to provide housing, so the Respondent was entitled to Kshs.90,000 monthly rent for 60 months, totaling Kshs.5,700,000.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The claimants sought declarations that the 2nd Respondent’s 2022 letter/circular was unlawful, their employment rights were violated, constitutional rights under Articles 41 and 47 of Kenya’s Constitution were infringed, and deductions of Kshs.94,000 from their salaries were unlawful. The respondents denied wrongdoing, asserting compliance with directives from the Auditor General, County Assembly, Senate, and SRC, and that the claimants were full-time members ineligible for commuter allowances per the 2017 SRC circular. The court found the claimants’ constitutional rights were violated due to lack of prior notice and hearing before the deduction of commuter allowances, ruling the deductions unlawful and ordering refunds.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
The petitioner, a County Assembly established under Article 176 and 177 of the Constitution, challenged the respondent (Independent Constitutional Commission)’s circulars that demoted County Assembly members from job grade D5 to D4 and reduced their benefits. The court found the petition meets the competence threshold under the reasonable precision test. The court declared the circulars unconstitutional as they violated Articles 10, 27(1)(2)(3)(4), and 47 of the Constitution by unilaterally demoting members without due process and reducing benefits, and quashed the circulars. The court also held the respondent did not fail to approve Non-practicing Allowance as it followed constitutional principles and existing regulations.