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

Joel Maika Mikunyua VS Kenya Horticultural Exporters Ltd

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

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.

County Assembly of Embu VS The Salaries and Remuneration Commission

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

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.

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.

CPL ALEX MURIITHI NKANDA VS THE NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE AND 1 Others

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

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.