Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2021] KEELRC 2372 (KLR)

Joseph K. Koech & another v Jalaram Ltd [2021] KEELRC 2372 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
1 October 2021
JAJ. N. Abuodha
432 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer who fired two workers verbally without notice or a hearing was ordered to pay them compensation and costs under the Employment Act.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Two claimants, Joseph Kiprop Koech and James Maiyo, sued their former employer by memorandum of claim filed on 24th July 2017 before the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret, alleging they were employed as general workers in February 2015 and 7th May 2016 respectively at a monthly wage of Kshs. 10,107 each, and that on 15th August 2016 the respondent verbally and unlawfully terminated their services without paying terminal dues. They pleaded violations of sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, contending that the reasons for termination were neither valid nor proved, and sought declarations that the termination was unlawful, unprocedural and unfair, certificates of service, and costs. The respondent was served but filed no appearance or response and did not attend the hearing, so the matter proceeded ex parte and the claim was uncontroverted. The claimants testified that their engagement was verbal, that no termination notices were issued, that no disciplinary hearing was conducted, and that they worked from 7.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. seven days a week including public holidays, loading cement and iron sheets. Holding the claims uncontroverted, the court entered judgment for Joseph Kiprop Koech in the sum of Kshs. 398,401.50 and for James Maiyo in the sum of Kshs. 32,975.78, ordered the respondent to issue certificates of service, subjected the award to applicable taxes, and awarded costs of the suit to the claimants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Lawfulness and fairness of termination without notice or disciplinary hearing

Holding

The verbal termination without notice or disciplinary hearing violated sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act and the Claimants' uncontroverted claim succeeds

Reasoning

The Claimants gave unchallenged evidence that they were employed as general workers, terminated verbally on 15th August 2016 without notice, and were never taken through a disciplinary hearing. The respondent, though served, filed no appearance, response, and did not cross-examine. The claims therefore remained uncontroverted and judgment was entered as prayed for the claimed sums.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Uncontroverted claims in employment disputes, where the respondent fails to appear or respond, may be granted as prayed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered in favour of Joseph Kiprop Koech against the respondent in the sum of Kshs. 398,401/50
  2. 2.Judgment entered in favour of James Maiyo against the respondent in the sum of Kshs. 32,975/78
  3. 3.The Claimants to be issued with certificates of service by the respondent
  4. 4.Award subject to taxes where applicable
  5. 5.Costs of the suit to the Claimants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsections 41, 43, 45
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (sections 41, 43 and 45 invoked)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joseph K. Koech & another v Jalaram Ltd [2021] KEELRC 2372 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2372/eng@2021-10-01

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.