Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. 31 of 2019· [2020] KECA 770 (KLR)

Joseph Mdudu Kenga v NAS Airport Services Limited Mombasa & another [2020] KECA 770 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
24 April 2020
2,924 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed workers must prove claims with documents, and can't invoke union CBA terms after dismissal if they never disclosed union membership.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Court of Appeal judgment at Mombasa (delivered at Nairobi on 24 April 2020) disposed of a first appeal by Joseph Mdudu Kenga against the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Ndolo, J.), which had found his employment unjustifiably terminated but awarded only 6 months' salary as compensation and 1 month's salary in lieu of notice, rather than the full panoply of Kshs. 1,579,275.14 he claimed. The Court framed five issues: identity of employer, position held, salary earned, whether dismissal was justified or the appellant deserted, and entitlement to the sums claimed. Applying its first-appeal duty to re-evaluate the evidence, the Court held that documents produced by Manpower (application letter, employment contract, leave forms, NHIF/NSSF remittances) proved Manpower was the employer; that the contract showed employment as a sales associate and a salary of Kshs. 25,000; and that, applying sections 107(1) and 108 of the Evidence Act, the desertion allegation was unproved, so the finding of unjustified termination stood. The Court declined to increase compensation to 12 months, applying the United India Insurance discretion principles, since the appellant showed no misdirection. House allowance and CBA-based claims failed because the appellant never disclosed union membership to the employer during employment, making retrospective application of the CBA impermissible. Leave, arrears, holidays, overtime and service-charge claims were unproved. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety and, to avert further acrimony, each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The trial court's judgment was accordingly affirmed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Identity of the employer

Holding

The appellant was an employee of Manpower Networks Limited, not NAS Airport Services Limited.

Reasoning

Manpower produced the appellant's letter of application for employment as a supervisor with Manpower, an employment contract between the appellant and Manpower, leave application forms addressed to Manpower, and NHIF and NSSF remittance statements. The court found these documents sufficient proof that Manpower was the employer. The appellant produced no contrary documentation.

p. 3
02

Whether termination was unjustified or a desertion

Holding

The trial court's finding that the employment was unjustifiably terminated was affirmed; the desertion allegation was unproved.

Reasoning

Under sections 107(1) and 108 of the Evidence Act, he who asserts must prove. Though Manpower claimed the appellant deserted duty by failing to attend a disciplinary hearing, there was no letter inviting him to the hearing nor minutes of proceedings, and Manpower's own witness admitted no formal process was adopted to terminate the contract.

p. 4
03

Whether the award of 6 months' salary as compensation should be increased to 12 months

Holding

The appellate court declined to interfere with the discretionary award of 6 months' compensation.

Reasoning

Applying the Madan JA principles in United India Insurance Co. Ltd v East African Underwriters, an appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary award unless the judge misdirected himself in law, misapprehended the facts, took into account or failed to take into account relevant considerations, or the decision is plainly wrong. The appellant demonstrated none of these.

p. 4
04

Whether the CBA applied so as to entitle the appellant to house allowance

Holding

The CBA could not be invoked retrospectively after the employment had ended where the employee never disclosed union membership to the employer.

Reasoning

The appellant admitted he never told the employer he was a union member and never brought the CBA terms to the employer's attention during employment. The court held it was too late to demand retrospective application of the CBA after termination, so only the employment contract applied, under which the monthly salary was inclusive of house allowance.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • On a first appeal, the Court of Appeal must re-evaluate, reassess and reanalyze the facts and reach its own conclusions.
  • An appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary decision unless the judge misdirected himself in law, misapprehended the facts, took into account or failed to take into account relevant considerations, or the decision is plainly wrong.
  • Where an employer alleges desertion, it must prove it took steps to notify the employee that the employment was terminated.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Evidence ActSections 107(1) and 108
  • Employment ActGeneral provisions on addressing employee misconduct (referenced generally)

Cases cited (4)

  • Cecilia Gathoni & another vs George Kariuki Kabugu
    [2013] eKLR
  • Sumaria & Another vs Allied Industries Ltd
    [2007] KLR 1
  • United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs East African Underwriters (Kenya) Ltd
    [1985] E.A
  • S. M. vs E. N. B.
    [2015] eKLR
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
ELRC No. 681 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (first appeal on facts and law from the Employment and Labour Relations Court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joseph Mdudu Kenga v NAS Airport Services Limited Mombasa & another [2020] KECA 770 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2020/770/eng@2020-04-24

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.