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

Monica Wanjiku Mchemi VS Nanyuki Cottage Hospital

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Claim/Causes

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

Kenya Union Of Clinical Officers (kuco) VS Nyeri County Public Service Board AND Nyeri County Government

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Claim/Causes

Kenya Union Of Pre-primary Education Teachers VS Muranga County Public Service Board AND County Secretary Muranga County Government

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Claim/Causes

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

Beatrice Khakali Munialo VS Timothy Murimi Muindi T/a Kageni Resort Development & Farm

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Claim/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.

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.

Alfred Kamau Mugai VS Embu County AND Salaries And Remuneration Commission AND 2 Others

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Claim/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.

Pauline Rwamba Njiru VS Embu County AND Salaries And Remuneration Commission AND 2 Others

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Claim/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 the Constitution were infringed, and the deduction of Kshs.94,000 from their salaries was unlawful, along with refunds and damages. The respondents denied wrongdoing, asserting compliance with directives from the Auditor General, County Assembly, Senate, and the SRC. The court consolidated the suits, heard testimony from claimants and respondents, and found that the claimants were full-time CPSB members not entitled to commuter allowance under the 2017 SRC circular, which superseded prior circulars, and that the County Government had not provided vehicles for pool transport, making the deduction lawful under the SRC’s authority.

Stanley Njoroge Mwangi VS Solio Ranch Limited

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Claim/Causes

The court determined that the respondent's termination of the claimant was lawful under section 44(4)(g) of the Employment Act because the claimant was suspected of committing a criminal offence against the employer's property, as he was found in possession of company property without written authorization from the Board of Directors. The court found that the respondent had reasonable grounds to suspect theft, given the claimant's admission that some items lacked documentary proof of being gifted. The court rejected the claimant's argument that he was not served with a warning letter or given an opportunity to defend himself, noting that the termination followed the claimant's arrest and police investigations. The court ruled that the termination was fair and lawful, thus dismissing the claimant's reliefs for unfair termination and unlawful dismissal.

Mary Nyawira Ngatia VS Baltic Textile Trading Limited

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Claim/Causes

The claimant, a former Shop Manager, challenged her summary dismissal as unlawful and unfair under section 41, 43, and 45 of the Employment Act. The respondent admitted the employment relationship but denied unlawful dismissal, asserting the termination followed valid grounds and fair procedure. The court found the dismissal was unfair because the same misconduct (stock discrepancies) had been previously addressed with a warning and performance evaluation period that lapsed without further issues. Reviving the matter after the attempted theft incident constituted double punishment, violating procedural fairness. The court ruled the dismissal was unlawful and unfair, and the claimant was entitled to compensation including terminal dues.

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.

Darwin Kanai Gakenia VS Lion Landscapes

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Claim/Causes

The claimant alleged unfair termination, violation of constitutional rights, and breach of employment laws. The respondent admitted termination for misconduct after fair hearing and payment of dues. The court found the termination unfair due to lack of valid reason and fair procedure, including conflicts in the disciplinary panel and failure to follow staff handbook procedures. The court ruled in favor of the claimant, declaring unfair termination and awarding damages.