Analyse the unfair labour practices cited there in - 10 Marks

2. Discuss How would the respondent treated the claimant differently to avoid the suit? 5

5. On the claim for damages, the Claimant submits that he has proved that his contract of employment was unfairly terminated and that his constitutional right to fair labour practices was infringed. He opined that an award of Kshs. 1,500,000/- would be reasonable in the circumstances. He relies on the case of County Government Workers Union v Narok County Government \& Another [2021] eKLR where Wasilwa J. awarded Kshs. 1,000,000/- as damages for breach of an employee's constitutional right to fair labour practices. The Claimant also cited the case of Hesbon Nguruiya Waigi v Equatorial Commercial Bank Ltd [2013] eKLR, where Mbaru J. awarded Kshs. 100,000/- to an employee whose salary was Kshs. 30,000/- per month, for breach of his constitutional right to fair labour practice. He submits that he is further entitled to one month's salary in lieu of notice as there is no dispute that his contract of employment was terminated without notice and that under Section 35(c) of the Employment Act, 2007, a notice of at least one month is implied in every contract of employment. The Claimant further submits that as his employment http://wwwk enyalaw.org - Page 2/4 Robert Momanyi v Catholic University of Eastern Africa [2021] eKLR period at the Respondent is not in dispute and considering the length of service and the manner in which his contract was terminated, an award of 12 months' gross salary is reasonable compensation for loss of his employment. He relies on the case of Peter Kamau Mwaura \& Another v National Bank of Kenya [2020] eKLR where the Court awarded the claimants 12 months' salary compensation after taking into account their long years of service of 27 and 16 years respectively and the fact that they were unable to secure alternative employment within a year after termination. 6. The Respondent did not participate at the hearing and the Claimant argues that his evidence went unchallenged. He asserts that the Honourable Court ought to find that the claim has been proved to the required standard. Whereas there was no appearance by the Respondent and whereas the Claimant's testimony went unchallenged, the Court cannot take his evidence as proved to the required standard on that score as pleadings by a party or the evidence adduced in support of a case are not gospel truths. The Court must weigh the evidence adduced and the facts of the case to come to a determination. If the contrary was true that automatically a case is proved because the evidence he gave is uncontroverted then the Court would be reduced to a rubber stamp and not elevated to its true calling which is a trier of facts and the harbinger of justice