JudgmentTitus Mutuku Maweu VS Safaricom Limited
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court dismissed the Claimant's application for extensions of time to file a claim and appeal, finding that Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 mandates a strict three-year limitation period for employment claims, which cannot be extended. The Claimant's claim, which was 11 months late, was statute-barred, and the court cited precedents including Njunge v. Muasya and Beatrice Kahai Adagala v. Postal Corporation of Kenya to affirm that limitation periods for contractual claims are not extendable once lapsed.
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 magistrate's judgment, challenging the finding of liability and the quantum of general damages. The appeal focused on whether the trial court erred in assessing damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities due to a deep cut wound on the right small finger. The court determined that the trial court's award of Kshs 180,000 was not excessive, as comparable cases showed awards ranging from Kshs 150,000 to Kshs 300,000 for similar soft tissue injuries, and the trial court considered the evidence and inflationary trends. The court upheld the award, finding it consistent with the evidence and not an erroneous estimate.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court considered an application by the Appellant seeking to set aside a judgment delivered by Hon. H.M Ng’ang’a in ELRC 1259/2019, 1260 of 2019 and 1261 of 2019, with the Appellant alleging that the delay in filing the appeal was due to inability to secure certified proceedings. The court noted the period of delay was around seven months, which it deemed inordinate, but granted the Appellant a last chance to file the appeal out of time under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. The court found the appeal was arguable on issues like ghost workers and unfair termination, but refused to set aside the judgment at this stage as it would be determined upon appeal. The court also addressed issues of representation, stay of execution, and prejudice, emphasizing that the Appellant must show substantial loss to warrant stay orders.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court considered an appeal against a trial court ruling that dismissed the appellant's claim for unpaid salary, savings, and gratuity as time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act. The appellant argued that the claims for underpayment of salary from 2009 to 2021, savings deductions, and statutory gratuity constituted continuing injuries within the statutory limitation period of 12 months after termination of employment. The court determined that the trial court erred in finding the claims time barred as they were not continuing injuries, and the appeal was allowed with costs, reinstating the appellant's suit on its merits.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court dismissed the appellant's appeal against part of the trial judgment, finding that the trial court correctly determined the respondent's dismissal was unfair and unlawful due to the appellant failing to provide evidence of the respondent's misconduct and not following procedural fairness under section 41 of the Employment Act. The court also varied the compensation award from three months' salary to six months' salary for unlawful termination, noting the appellant's scheme to terminate without declaring redundancy.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The Appellant appealed against the Magistrate's dismissal of the Claimant's suit, arguing that the trial court erred in law on multiple grounds including the termination being procedural, the Appellant's desertion, continuous employment as a machine operator, entitlement to house allowance, and the validity of fixed-term contracts. The Appellant contended that the termination was unfair and that the trial court failed to consider the burden of proof under the Employment Act and Constitution. The Respondent countered that the Appellant failed to prove termination occurred and that the termination was due to desertion, with no credible evidence of procedural fairness. The court disposed of the appeal via written submissions, with the Appellant's arguments on desertion, continuous employment, and house allowance being challenged by the Respondent's submission that the Appellant did not prove termination and that fixed-term contracts were valid under the Employment Act.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The Appellant appealed against the subordinate court's judgment dismissing the Claimant's suit, arguing that the trial court erred in law on multiple grounds including the termination being procedural, the Appellant's continuous employment as a machine operator, entitlement to house allowance, and the validity of the termination. The Appellant contended that the termination was unfair and procedurally flawed, citing constitutional and statutory provisions on fair labor practices. The Respondent countered that the Appellant failed to prove termination occurred, emphasizing the lack of credible evidence for termination and the Appellant's habitual absence from work. The appeal was disposed of by written submissions without a hearing, with the court not intervening on the specific issues raised.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The Appellant appealed against a magistrate's judgment that found she failed to discharge the burden of proof in her case regarding pregnancy discrimination and unlawful termination. The court addressed whether the Appellant met the burden of proof under the Employment Act, whether the contract was constructively renewed after expiry, whether the termination complied with the Employment Act's redundancy requirements, and whether the termination was premeditated discrimination. The court upheld the Appellant's arguments, finding the Respondent failed to meet statutory requirements for redundancy, the contract was constructively renewed, and the termination was discriminatory on pregnancy grounds.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The Appellant appealed against the Trial Magistrate's judgment, arguing that the Respondent admitted signing a 2018 agreement acknowledging no further claim against the Appellant, failed to raise a 'non est factum' defense, and the Trial Magistrate erred in awarding leave pay and damages without sufficient evidence. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the Trial Magistrate did not err in law or fact regarding the Respondent's signature, burden of proof, or the award of payments.
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.