Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
Anthony Imbati Donald appealed against the Chief Magistrate's Court judgment dismissing his claim for wrongful termination of employment. The court considered whether the termination was unlawful due to non-compliance with Section 40 of the Employment Act and other statutory provisions. The court found that the trial court erred by concluding the termination was lawful based on the claimant's contract being tied to a third-party contractor, as the contract did not explicitly name the third party. The court held that the termination was wrongful as the claimant was not properly declared redundant under Section 40 of the Employment Act, and the trial court failed to consider relevant statutory provisions. The appeal succeeded in setting aside the trial court's judgment and awarding the reliefs as claimed.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The appellant appealed against the trial magistrate's dismissal of their claim for wrongful termination, seeking to set aside the order and obtain costs. The court determined that the trial magistrate erred in failing to find that the appellant was lawfully dismissed without justifiable reasons, that due procedure was not followed in the dismissal, and that the appellant was entitled to damages and gratuity under the Employment Act. The court found that the respondent failed to provide a notice to show cause or conduct a disciplinary hearing, and the dismissal was procedurally unfair under section 41 of the Employment Act.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The appellant appealed against the trial court's judgment in CMEL No. E131 of 2023, seeking to set aside the judgment and award specific compensation including wrongful dismissal damages, house allowance, overtime, and public holidays. The court found the trial court erred by failing to consider Section 41 of the Employment Act regarding the employer's burden to justify termination and did not make a finding that the termination was unfair. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the termination was unfair but noted the appellants admitted to apologizing for theft allegations and having meetings with the employer, so there was no basis to disturb the finding on the validity of the reason for termination.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The appellant appealed against the Chief Magistrate Hon P.N. Gesora's judgment in CMEL No. 216 of 2018, seeking to set aside the trial court's decision and award unpaid commissions, salary arrears, and compensation for wrongful dismissal. The court found the appellant's termination was unfair under the Employment Act due to procedural irregularities, as the respondent failed to prove valid performance-related grounds for termination and did not comply with section 41's procedural fairness requirements despite the oral probationary contract. The court substituted the judgment with compensation equivalent to two months' salary and one month's notice, ruling the dismissal was unlawful and the appellant was entitled to reliefs.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
Rupra Construction Company Limited appealed against a trial court judgment that found the respondent's termination was procedurally and substantively unfair. The appellant argued the trial magistrate erred by prioritizing procedural fairness over substantive grounds for termination, misapplying legal principles requiring the employee to establish a prima facie case before the employer bears the burden of proving termination validity. The court noted the trial court failed to assess substantive grounds for dismissal and incorrectly shifted evidentiary burden to the appellant prematurely, contrary to established precedent in Dungani v West Kenya Sugar Company Limited (2024) KEELRC 172 (KLR). The court held the trial magistrate erred in finding the termination was wrongfully terminated due to misapplication of law regarding the employee's initial burden of proof.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
SGS Security Guards Services Ltd appealed against a Chief Magistrate's Court judgment awarding house allowance and costs to the Claimant. The appeal challenged the magistrate's findings that the Claimant was not paid house allowance, disregarded the Claimant's payroll showing house allowance was paid, and awarded costs to the Claimant. The court found the magistrate erred in law and fact by misapplying employment laws, disregarding evidence of unpaid overtime, public holidays, and leave, and failing to consider the Claimant's entitlement to compensation under the Employment Act and Labour Institution Act. The court set aside the award of house allowance and costs, and substituted an order allowing the appeal with compensation for unpaid overtime, public holidays, leave, and leave travelling allowance.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court overturned the trial court's finding that the termination was fair, holding it lacked procedural fairness and valid reasons due to the absence of evidence proving service of the show cause letter and the claimant's admission of working in September 2020 after termination. The court awarded compensation for unfair termination under section 49 of the Employment Act for 10 months, confirmed overtime payments, and noted service pay was incorrectly dismissed due to lack of evidence on NSSF remittance.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court considered an appeal against a subordinate court's dismissal of a claim for unfair termination. The appellant argued that the trial court erred in finding the appellant lawfully terminated and absconded, as the employer failed to follow proper procedures under the Employment Act, 2007, including issuing warnings and providing due process. The court found the trial court erred in its findings on the claim for unfair termination and the appellant was entitled to reliefs sought in the claim, emphasizing that termination must adhere to procedural safeguards under the Employment Act.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court upheld the appellant's appeal against the trial magistrate's judgment in a labor dispute. The appellant challenged the magistrate's findings that the respondent had not demonstrated the termination was unfair or wrongful, arguing the respondent failed to meet the burden of proving dismissal and its unlawfulness. The court determined the trial magistrate erred by not requiring the respondent to first establish the termination occurred before shifting the burden to the appellant to prove its legality, as per the Employment Act 2007. The court allowed the appeal with costs, setting aside the trial magistrate's judgment.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The appellant appealed against the trial court's ruling that the claimant's suit was sub-judice, arguing that a parallel suit (CMEL No. 6920 of 2019) did not exist. The court found the trial court erred in law and fact by determining the claim was sub-judice without verifying that the alleged parallel suit was actually registered and active, as the file was erroneously allocated and no such case existed in the court's records. The court held the claimant's suit was not sub-judice because the purported parallel suit was null and void ab initio, and the trial court failed to properly assess the existence of the parallel suit before striking out the claim.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The appellant appealed against the trial magistrate's judgment in Employment Cause No. E1008 of 2020, arguing that the magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to appreciate the evidence regarding the appellant's 13-year continuous employment without breaks, unpaid overtime, public holidays, and unfair termination. The appellant claimed service gratuity, payment in lieu of notice, unpaid wages, and compensation for unfair termination, while the respondent counterclaimed for alleged misappropriation of funds and conversion of property. The court determined that the trial magistrate's findings on termination and unfairness were inconsistent with the evidence, leading to the appeal being allowed with the judgment set aside and substituted in favor of the appellant.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The appellant appealed against the trial court's judgment dismissing their claim for unfair termination, arguing that the trial court erred in finding termination lawful, failed to properly consider their evidence, relied on unpleaded matters (specifically, the respondent's submissions on strike), and incorrectly applied Section 80 of the Labour Relations Act without evidence of an illegal strike. The court determined the trial court erred in law and fact by not adequately evaluating the appellant's evidence, overreliance on unpleaded strike issues, and misapplication of Section 80 of the Labour Relations Act, thus allowing the appeal and setting aside the trial court's judgment.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The appellant appealed against the trial court's judgment dismissing their claim for unfair termination, arguing the trial magistrate erred in finding termination lawful, relied on unpleaded strike-related submissions, failed to adequately consider their evidence, and incorrectly applied Section 80 of the Labour Relations Act. The court noted similar facts to a prior case and adopted the lower court's findings on lawfulness and fairness of termination without re-evaluating evidence, ruling the appeal failed due to the appellant's failure to properly plead the strike issue and the trial court's adherence to established principles of appeal.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The appellant appealed against the trial court's judgment in a labor dispute where the claimant alleged unlawful termination. The trial court found the claimant was unlawfully terminated due to flawed disciplinary procedures, awarding Kshs. 300,000 for unlawful termination, Kshs. 449,280 for overtime, and costs. The appellant argued the claimant was entitled to only one month's salary in lieu of notice under the employment contract, which permitted termination with one month's notice or payment. The court determined the trial court erred in law by not considering the contractual right to terminate with one month's notice or payment, and the claimant was not entitled to damages beyond the notice period.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The appellant appealed against the trial court's judgment dismissing their claim for unfair termination. The court found the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to sufficiently consider the appellant's evidence, over-relying on the respondent's unpleaded submissions regarding an alleged unlawful strike, and incorrectly determining that the termination was lawful due to the appellant's failure to perform duties. The court held the termination was not procedurally fair as the appellant was only given a show cause notice without a hearing, contrary to section 41 of the Employment Act. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the trial judgment and ordering the respondent to pay the appellant's claim and costs.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The Employment and Labour Relations Court allowed the appellant's application for temporary stay of execution of a money decree pending appeal, finding that the appellant had provided sufficient security (joint interest-earning account) for the decretal sum, there was no evidence of the respondent's financial capability to refund the amount if the appeal succeeded, and the alleged income of the respondent was unsubstantiated. The court concluded that substantial loss would result to the appellant if the appeal was unsuccessful without a stay, and the application met the conditions under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court considered an application for stay of execution pending appeal in a default judgment case. The applicant sought stay of execution of a judgment awarding Kshs. 390,832, arguing that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the former advocates' negligence and that the applicant would suffer substantial loss if execution proceeded. The court found that the applicant's case for substantial loss was meritorious, as the applicant's educational operations would be crippled by the attachment and sale of assets, and the appeal had a high chance of success. The court granted the stay pending appeal, noting that the applicant's ability to continue operations outweighed any inconvenience to the respondent, and the applicant provided sufficient security for costs.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The Applicant filed a motion application under Sections 1A, 1B, 3, and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, 2010, seeking a stay of execution of a judgment dated 18th October 2024. The Applicant argued that proceeding with execution would cause substantial and irreparable loss if the appeal succeeded, as the respondent might be unable to refund the awarded sums. The Court granted the stay of execution pending appeal, finding the appeal was arguable, there was no unreasonable delay in filing the application, and the Applicant had deposited the decretal sum as security. The Court also ordered the Applicant to file the appeal record within 45 days.