An Employment and Labour Relations Court has ruled that employees who are unfairly dismissed cannot claim salaries and benefits they would have earned up to retirement age, even when the court finds their termination was unfair and unlawful. Breaking It Down In a landmark ruling delivered by the ELRC in Kericho, the court upheld a previous finding by the lower court that the contract of an accounts clerk in one of the private mission hospitals
06/21/26 • 3 Views
An Employment and Labour Relations Court has ruled that employees who are unfairly dismissed cannot claim salaries and benefits they would have earned up to retirement age, even when the court finds their termination was unfair and unlawful.
🇰🇪 Breaking It Down
In a landmark ruling delivered by the ELRC in Kericho, the court upheld a previous finding by the lower court that the contract of an accounts clerk in one of the private mission hospitals in the country had been unfairly terminated.
ELRC, however, failed to agree on the damages that the hospital was required to pay to the employee. In its ruling, the court reduced the damages awarded to him by the lower court.
According to court documents, the dispute arose after the hospital accused the employee of irregularities involving transport reimbursements for a paediatric clinic programme.
📌 What You Need to Know
The hospital claimed that transport allowances had been paid to 70 participants despite only 34 allegedly attending the event.
He denied the responsibility for the alleged loss, leading to the hospital taking disciplinary actions against him that included dismissal.
The employee rushed to court, where the lower court found that he was unfairly dismissed, ordering the employer to compensate the employee for damages, which included projected earnings and benefits extending to the employee's retirement age.
On appeal, the hospital challenged both the finding of unfair termination and the substantial compensation awarded by the trial court.
In her judgment, Justice Anna Ngibuini Mwaure found that while the hospital had substantially complied with the procedural requirements for disciplinary action under Section 41 of the Employment Act, it failed to prove the allegations against the employee.
The judge noted that contradictory testimony from the hospital's own witnesses weakened its case and left the court unconvinced that the employee was responsible for the alleged financial loss.
📰 Source: Kenyans.co.ke






