Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri ELRC

Bundu Cafe VS Simon Juma Muriithi

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

Christopher Mwangi Ndiritu VS Silver Brook Hotel Ltd

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

State Law Office VS Joseph Mwangi Kihara

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

John Muthui Gachago VS John Kabiru Mwaniki

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

Kiama Farmers Cooperative Society VS Jane Murugi Mahinda AND Co-operative Bank Of Kenya Limited

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

Anglican Church Of Kenya Diocese Of Embu VS Rev. Elijah Gichangi Wanja

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

County Government Of Kirinyaga AND Kirinyaga County Secretary VS Hon.peter Ndambiri Njagi

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

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.

Joyce Wanjiru Baru VS Justus Kiara

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

The court set aside the trial court's finding that the respondent was unfairly terminated, ruling that the respondent failed to prove he was dismissed by the appellant via phone call on 28th August 2023. The court found that the respondent did not discharge the burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act to demonstrate termination by the appellant, and instead, he stopped attending work without prior notice. The court substituted the finding that the respondent voluntarily left his job, thereby setting aside the awards of 12 months' salary compensation and one month's salary in lieu of notice.

Aegis Construction Limited VS Richard Maina Kihenja

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

The appellant appealed against the lower court's decision regarding the unlawful termination of the respondent's employment. The appellant challenged the trial court's findings on multiple grounds, including the misdirection on the claimant's termination, the failure to apply Section 30 of the Employment Act, 2007, and the erroneous conclusion that the respondent was not required to present a certificate of incapacity. The court found that the respondent's employment was terminated by the appellant without proper procedure, as the appellant did not serve a show cause notice or conduct a disciplinary hearing, and the respondent was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. The court upheld the trial court's decision that the termination was unfair and unlawful, emphasizing the need for fair procedures under the Employment Act.

Riva Petroleum Dealers Limted VS Anthony Wanjohi Ndumia

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

The court quashed the lower court's ruling on the appeal, finding that the appellant erred by failing to properly challenge the leave to file suit out of time under section 90 of the Employment Act. The trial court incorrectly held that it could not sit on appeal over a fellow magistrate's leave order, but the court determined that the appellant could raise a preliminary objection to the time-barred suit during trial proceedings, as leave to file suit out of time is not a final order and can be challenged during the trial. The court ruled that the trial court erred in allowing the suit to proceed without addressing the time-barred issue during trial, and the appeal was allowed with the statement of claim struck out.

Amos Mwangi Njoroge VS China Far East Construction Company Limited

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

The court dismissed the appellants' appeals against the trial court's finding that they failed to prove an employment relationship with the respondent. The appellants alleged unlawful termination of employment by the respondent between July 2018 and 2020, but they did not produce written contracts or witnesses to support their claims. The trial court found that the appellants did not prove their employment relationship under section 107 of the Evidence Act, as they only submitted demand letters and no evidence of salary payments. The court upheld the dismissal with costs, noting the appellants failed to meet the burden of proof for employment and termination claims.

Leonard Magira Muchiri VS China Far East Construction Company Limited

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

The court dismissed the appellants' appeals, finding that they failed to prove an employment relationship with the respondent as alleged. The appellants did not provide sufficient evidence, such as written contracts or bank statements, to demonstrate they were employed by the respondent. The trial court concluded that the appellants did not meet the burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act, and the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Moses Murithi Ndaguri VS China Far East Construction Company Limited

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

The court dismissed the appellants' appeals, finding that they failed to prove they were employed by the respondent as alleged. The appellants did not provide sufficient evidence, such as written contracts or bank statements, to establish the employment relationship despite alleging oral contracts and payment of salaries. The respondent's witness denied the employment relationship and admitted that the appellants were casual employees not employed for more than three months. The court held that the appellants did not meet the burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act, which requires proving facts on a balance of probabilities.

Stephen Kiogora Guantai VS China Far East Construction Company Limited

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

The court dismissed the appellants' appeals, finding that they failed to prove an employment relationship with the respondent as alleged. The appellants did not produce sufficient evidence, such as written contracts or bank statements, to establish that they were employed by the respondent. The trial court concluded that the appellants did not meet the burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act, which requires proving facts on a balance of probabilities. The court emphasized that the appellants only produced demand letters and no other documentary evidence, and their witnesses did not corroborate the employment relationship.

Colnet Limited VS Carolyne Wangui Kamau

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

The court reviewed the appeal against the lower court's judgment on constructive dismissal. The appellant challenged the lower court's findings that the respondent was constructively terminated despite the respondent not making a prayer for constructive dismissal, the respondent's alleged absconding, shifting of burden of proof, failure to evaluate evidence, disregard for appellant's evidence, and underpayment of salary. The court found that the respondent deserted employment by failing to respond to the show cause letter and subsequent instructions to report to the HR office in Nairobi, thus concluding that the respondent's conduct constituted desertion rather than dismissal. The court upheld the lower court's award of Kshs.141,048.79 for unfair termination, salary for days worked in May 2022, house allowance, underpayment of salary for 8 months, and one-month salary in lieu of notice.

Colnet Limited VS Sina Jementina Wandimi

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

The court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the lower court's judgment in ELRC Cause No. E070 of 2022. The appellant challenged the trial court's allowance of the claimant's suit without giving the respondent a hearing, the finding of unfair termination without hearing the respondent's evidence, and the failure to evaluate the appellant's pleadings and evidence. The court found that the appellant was served with a hearing notice but failed to attend court, thus not being condemned without hearing; the trial court did not err by basing its judgment on the respondent's evidence alone as the appellant did not tender evidence to prosecute its defense; and the award of damages was well-founded and supported by evidence. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Zacheas Ndungu Hahanyu VS China Wuyi Company Limited

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

The appeal court reviewed the claim of unlawful termination of employment where the appellant alleged unfair dismissal without valid reason or fair procedure. The trial court had found the appellant failed to prove unfair termination on a balance of probabilities, noting he signed a discharge voucher acknowledging receipt of all dues and confirming no further claims. The appeal court upheld this finding, rejecting the appellant's claim that the discharge voucher waived his right to compensation for unfair termination, as the appellant admitted he did not receive termination letters and had only one warning letter despite company policy requiring three warnings for termination. The court concluded the appellant voluntarily left work to claim dues after receiving two warnings, thus terminating employment without unlawful dismissal.

TAMARIND MANAGEMENT LIMITED VS ELIJAH GICHUKI GATHERU

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

The court determined that the appellant unlawfully terminated the respondent's employment without following the required redundancy procedures under section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007. The trial court found the termination was unlawful due to the failure to adhere to redundancy procedures, awarding damages, severance pay, unpaid house allowance, one-month salary in lieu of notice, and a certificate of service. The appellant appealed, arguing the termination was valid under the doctrine of frustration due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but the court upheld the trial judgment that the redundancy procedures were not followed and the termination was unlawful.

Frigoken Limited VS Margdaline Khamitwa Musotsi

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

The court reviewed an appeal against a termination of employment by the appellant. The respondent claimed unlawful termination on account of redundancy, while the appellant argued the termination was due to low plantings and the respondent signed settlement agreements relinquishing claims. The court found the termination was unlawful as it did not follow section 40 of the Employment Act, which requires specific procedures for redundancy. The court upheld the award of 12 months' salary as compensation for unlawful termination, rejecting the appellant's argument that the settlement agreements barred the claim.

Roben Aberdare Limited VS Simeon Misati Merabe

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

The appellant appealed against the trial court's dismissal of their counter-claim and award of relief to the respondent, arguing the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by dismissing the appellant's prayers, failing to subject the award to statutory deductions, not finding valid termination reasons, taking irrelevant considerations, and not addressing pleadings and evidence. The trial court had found the dismissal unlawful and unfair, awarding compensation for unfair termination and salary in lieu of notice, but dismissed claims for unremitted NSSF and house allowance. The appeal court upheld the trial court's findings that the dismissal was unlawful and unfair, rejecting the appellant's arguments that the trial court erred in statutory deductions, failure to find valid termination reasons, or taking irrelevant considerations.