Driver paid Sh340,000 for breach of job contract
Nyanza
By
Robert Amalemba
| May 05, 2021
A driver who was sacked by Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology has been awarded Sh342,316 for a breach of his contract.
Justice Stephen Radido of the Kisumu Employment and Labour court observed that Edwin Mutanda was fairly sacked for forging a work ticket and his argument that he was being victimised because he was a union official was untenable.
“The court finds that the summary dismissal of Mutanda was fair. But I will award him a sum for the breach of his employment contract,” said the judge last week.
Mutanda alleged that he was victimised on the grounds of his being a deputy secretary of the Kenya Universities Staff Union (KUSU) and for having agreed to be a witness in a criminal complaint against the vice-chancellor.
READ MORE
From aid to enterprise: Refugee businesses expand East Africa's economy
Taiwan firm to unveil AI computers at tech conference
How AI is transforming financial services and business in Kenya
Kiosk economy: How small traders fuelled Safaricom's Sh100b profit
Beyond promises, budget must put money into Kenyans' pockets
Mbadi's mixed signals on PAYE proposals as he defends Finance Bill, 2026
Dangote favours Mombasa over Tanzania's Tanga for Sh2tr oil refinery
Pipeline politics: Why East Africa's joint refinery dream faces slippery path
Debt burden: Inside Treasury's plan to trap Kenya with billions in hidden debt
State plans major audit shakeup to stem graft, wastage of funds
The university, however, contended that his dismissal was based on his negligence and careless performance of his duties. The particulars given were that he falsified a work ticket.
The court found out that the entries in the work ticket were deliberate and were meant to claim a higher daily subsistence allowance.
Mutanda challenged the university’s disciplinary process on several grounds, including that the committee was not properly constituted because “it was co-chaired by the VC and was thus biased.”
He also argued that trade union officials present during the hearing of his case did not represent his interest in the true letter and spirit of unionism.