Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Court determined that the claimant, Jonathan Ciano, effectively resigned from his position as Group CEO of Uchumi Supermarkets Limited on 13th June 2015. The respondent's subsequent termination of his employment on 15th June 2015 was declared null and void. The claimant is entitled to terminal dues of Kshs 6,574,850.95, including accrued leave days, salary for 13 days worked in June 2015, and gratuity. The Court also ruled that the claimant is entitled to the costs of the suit, as the respondent's termination was invalid.
Issues
- Was the claimant's resignation valid as per the Employment Act and relevant case law?
- If the answer to (b) is in the affirmative was the claimant's termination unfair and unlawful?
- If the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, was the claimant's subsequent termination of any effect?
- Is the claimant entitled to the reliefs sought?
Holdings
- The claimant is entitled to Kshs 6,574,850.95 as terminal dues, including accrued leave days, salary for days worked in June 2015, and gratuity, which the respondent must release immediately.
- The Court determined that the claimant effectively resigned on 13th June 2015, rendering his subsequent termination on 15th June 2015 by the respondent null and void.
- The claimant is entitled to the costs of the suit, as the respondent's termination after his resignation was deemed unlawful and triggered the legal proceedings.
Remedies
- The court declared the respondent's termination of the claimant's employment on 15th June 2015 as null and void.
- The claimant is awarded the costs of the suit, as the respondent's termination after the resignation was the cause of the legal action.
- The claimant is entitled to terminal dues amounting to Kshs 6,574,850.95, which includes salary, untaken leave days, and gratuity.
Monetary Damages
6574850.95
Legal Principles
- The court applied the principle that a resignation by an employee is a unilateral act that takes effect immediately, even without employer acceptance, referencing Kenyan and South African precedents (Edwin Beiti Kipchumba vs N.B.K. Ltd [2018] eKLR, Lottering vs Stellenbosch Municipality (2010)).
- The court emphasized that the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving that the claimant's termination was fair and justified under the Employment Act, citing sections 41, 43, and 45.
Precedent Name
- William Kariuki vs Kenya Civil Aviation Authority
- Lottering vs Stellenbosch Municipality
- Abisalom Ajusa Magomere vs Kenya Nut Company Limited
- Pius Kimaiyo Langat vs Cooperative Bank of Kenya Ltd
- Pius Machafu Isindu vs Lavington Security Guards Limited
- Edwin Beiti Kipchumba vs National Bank of Kenya Limited
- Kennedy Obala Oaga vs Kenya Ports Authority
Cited Statute
Employment Act
Judge Name
Stella Rutto
Passage Text
- resignation by an Employee from employment, is basically termination of employment at the instance of the Employee. It is a unilateral act. The Employment Act does not require the Employer to accept a notice of termination issued by the Employee, for that notice to take effect.
- It was of no legal consequence for the respondent to terminate a non-existent contract of employment. In this respect, I find and hold that the purported termination by the respondent through its letter dated 15th June, 2015, to be of no effect hence is null and void.
- the Court arrives at the determination that the claimant effectively resigned on 13th June, 2015 and his subsequent termination on 15th June, 2015, by the respondent was null and void.