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 CourtClaim/Causes
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 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 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.
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 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.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/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.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/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.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
The court considered a motion filed by a petitioner seeking urgent certification, suspension of deployment from Mai Mahiu Traffic Sub-Base to Maganda Police Station, prohibition on interference with duties, contempt penalties for the Deputy Inspector General, and costs. The motion arose from the petitioner's claim that repeated deployments post-2021 court order breached constitutional rights and regulations. The court noted the 2021 judgment quashed a specific transfer but did not grant immunity from future deployments, and the petitioner's selective enforcement of the order after the judgment was criticized. The court found the motion should be allowed as the petitioner's recent deployments constituted contempt of the 2021 decree, but the case was later marked as fully settled after a settlement agreement was reached.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
The court dismissed the respondent's motion for urgent orders, including setting aside ex-parte orders and granting leave to respond, as the applicant was duly served with the Notice of Motion on 23rd January 2025 via email and phone number, and the orders were not made without opportunity to be heard. The court found the applicant's claims of constitutional breach and privacy violation unfounded, as the service methods were valid under Rule 28(1) of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2024, and the applicant failed to attend court despite being served.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/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.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The claimant, appointed County Chief Officer in Agriculture and Irrigation in 2023, was reassigned to DVTT in February 2024 and dismissed in August 2024. He alleged unlawful termination without valid reason, prior notice, or hearing. The respondent admitted the claimant's employment but claimed dismissal followed chronic absenteeism after reassignment, with warnings, a show cause letter, and a disciplinary hearing that the claimant failed to attend. The court found the dismissal lawful under the County Government Act and Employment Act, noting the claimant's chronic absenteeism and failure to respond to procedural steps. The claimant's arguments about improper service of notices and lack of hearing were rejected as the respondent followed procedural fairness despite the claimant's absence.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The respondent issued redundancy notices to 23 permanent employees citing unsustainable wage bills due to salaries under the Wages (General) Order instead of the Wages (Agricultural Industry) Order. The claimant challenged the redundancies as unlawful, unfair, and procedurally flawed, seeking to declare the notices null and void and restrain the respondent from terminating employment. The court granted interim orders suspending terminations pending resolution, noting the redundancy process violated section 40(1) of the Employment Act by failing to follow mandatory procedures including proper notification to the union, selection criteria, and severance pay calculations.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The court addressed a dispute where the claimant sought payment of retirement benefits including gratuity and salary arrears, and a certificate of service. The respondent denied liability, arguing that the contract of employment did not provide for gratuity and that NSSF contributions served as the retirement scheme. The court found that the respondent's retirement letter of 30th April 2021 voluntarily offered gratuity of Kshs.399,280 for 28 years of service, which the claimant accepted, making the payment enforceable despite the contract not explicitly providing for gratuity. The court also ordered payment of salary arrears of Kshs.15,135 and a certificate of service.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The court determined that the claimant did not meet the legal threshold of a simple majority (18 out of 22 unionisable employees) for recognition as the membership had dropped to 11 members by the time of filing the suit, thus declining the prayer for a recognition agreement. However, the court granted an injunction restraining the respondent from intimidating, coercing, victimizing, or harassing union members, as the right to join a trade union is protected by the Constitution. The court also allowed the claimant to continue recruiting members to seek recognition afresh under section 54 of the Labour Relations Act.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The court addressed whether a public officer can be dismissed for off-duty misconduct. The claimant, employed as an Accounts Clerk by the respondent university, was dismissed for misconduct while serving as treasurer and chairman of Murang’a University SACCO (MUSACCO). The respondent argued the claimant violated constitutional provisions, the Leadership and Integrity Act, Public Officer Ethics Act, and University HR policies by mismanaging SACCO funds, leading to gross misconduct. The court upheld the dismissal, ruling the claimant’s actions constituted gross misconduct under public officer ethics laws, as the misconduct occurred in his role as a SACCO official, which the respondent considered a public office function.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
The court found that the petitioner's petition met the competence threshold for constitutional pleading, as it clearly identified the violated constitutional rights (Articles 28, 35, 41, 47) and the manner of violation (failure to comply with section 22 of the Work Injury Benefit Act). The court declared that the respondents violated the petitioner's constitutional rights to dignity, right to information, fair labour practices, and fair administrative action by failing to report the occupational accident death to the Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health services and provide the required notice. The court ordered a declaration of violation, compensation of Kshs.700,000 for constitutional violations, and costs with interest, declining the claim for service pay due to the deceased's NSSF contributions.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtClaim/Causes
The court determined that the claimant, a registered trade union, is entitled to a 5% annual wage increase for 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 (totaling 10% over two years) based on the CPPMD report showing inflation at 4.7% per year, and that the respondent must sign the new CBA within 30 days. The court found the respondent's financial claims unverified due to withheld information, rejected the 7% annual wage increase offer as invalid due to the unionized secretary manager's conflict of interest, and ruled that the 5% increase is sustainable given the respondent's labor costs. The court dismissed the respondent's arguments about financial constraints and redundancies as insufficient to justify rejecting the wage increase.