The Employment and Labour Relations Court has awarded a house help Sh108,500 after he was unlawfully sacked by his employer.
Mr John Kiranga was awarded Sh70,000 as compensation for 10 months’ salary, Sh7,000 one month in lieu of notice and Sh31,500 as service pay for nine years.
In awarding the ten months’ salary compensation, Justice Linnet Ndolo said she considered Mr Kiranga’s long service with his employer, Mr Mohamed Mustaquim Yusuf.
“In arriving at this award, I have considered the claimant’s (Mr Kiranga) long service with the respondent (Mr Yusuf) as well as the respondent’s unlawful conduct in terminating the employment,” ruled Justice Ndolo.
According to Mr Kiranga, he was employed by Mr Yusuf as a house help from November 22, 2006, until March 7, 2016, earning a monthly salary of Sh7,000.
He told the court that on March 7, 2016, Mr Yusuf’s mother sent him to pick coconuts for the respondent and while he was away, she invited a woman to the house.
The court heard that after the woman left, it was discovered that the respondent’s phone had been stolen.
Mr Kiranga said that the respondent turned on him alleging that he had failed to prevent the theft of his phone.
The claimant told the court that Mr Yusuf used extremely abusive language while dismissing him on the spot.
He told the court that the termination of his employment was unfair and he was not paid any terminal dues.
In his statement of response filed in court, Mr Yusuf admitted having employed the claimant as a general house help.
However, he denied that Mr Kiranga was employed between November 22, 2006, and March 7, 2016, and also that his employment was unfairly terminated.
According to Mr Yusuf, the claimant was called upon and accorded a fair hearing as to the whereabouts of the missing phone.
Mr Yusuf said that Mr Kiranga’s employment was never terminated but he (Mr Kiranga) without reason absconded his duties.
The respondent claimed that the claimant was paid all the benefits that were due to him.
The court allowed the claim for service pay as Mr Yusuf did not adduce any documentary evidence to show that he remitted the claimant’s National Social Security Fund (NSSF) dues.
It also noted that at the trial, the claimant did not lead any evidence to support his claim for underpayment thus it (claim) was not proved.
In its decision, the court noted that the respondent did not attend trial in spite of due service.