10.07.2015 Views

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

number of days during which the employee remained absent from work duringtermination.Employee should be renurated for days he did not work, in this case being.of 4 yearsOut that does not mean the employee is not entitled to damages. It is my findingthat the employees is entitled to damages because he did not contribute to thecreation of the situation he found himself in. he was prevented from rodung hisact fees to the defendant by the wrongful acts of the deendant himself. In thatregard the plaintiff claims sh. 3,000,000/= as damages can loss of burnings andshs. 1,000,000/= as damages for loss of future expected earning is he is notreinstated. The claim of shs. 1,00,000/- is not now applicable because this courthas ordered his reinstatement and so he cannot be expect to have any loss ofany future burnings. Be regards the claim of damages of Shs. 3,00,000/- I think itis too much on the high side. After all he was expected to be barning a monthlysalary of shs. 1,775/= which norms in 41/2 years would not have exceeded shs150,000/- despite the annual incralents granted by the president to allemployees. The defendant company did not challenge the fact that the plaintiffwas entitled to the damages, apart from a nere denial of liability. My finding isthat the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the inconvenience caused to him. Myassessment is that the plaintiff should get shs. 50,000/- as damages which I findpersonable.628

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!