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 AppealDismissedEmployment and Labour Relations Court Cause No. 302 of 2016 (on appeal)

Echwa v Kenya Airports Authority (Civil Appeal E099 of 2021) [2024] KECA 828 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
12 July 2024
4,259 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that a justified dismissal stands despite minor procedural slip-ups, so the employee got no compensation and must pay the appeal costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant, a security warden employed by the Kenya Airports Authority from 1996, was summarily dismissed in July 2014 for gross misconduct relating to the alleged mutilation of fuel spillage forms and the unauthorised collection and non-remittance of Kshs. 20,000 from an airline operator. The Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa (Ongaya, J.) found his dismissal procedurally unfair for want of strict compliance with Clause N.9(i) of the HR Manual, declared the termination unfair, ordered no compensation, and directed each party to bear their own costs. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal at Mombasa, complaining principally that the trial Judge had denied him compensation despite finding procedural unfairness, had elevated substantive justification above procedural fairness, and had erred on costs. A bench of Murgor and Laibuta, JJ.A, in a single unanimous judgment, framed three issues: whether the disciplinary procedures amounted to unfair termination; whether the appellant was entitled to compensation; and what orders, including on costs, should issue. Applying the twin-requirement doctrine that fair termination demands both substantive justification and procedural fairness, the Court found the dismissal substantively justified and held that the minor lapses in the HR Manual procedure did not offend section 41 of the Employment Act or render the termination unfair. The claim for compensation consequently fell away, and the trial Judge's costs direction was upheld as a judicial exercise of discretion. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent, the Court holding the appeal needlessly instituted.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the disciplinary procedures and the procedural infractions complained of amounted to unfair termination
  2. 2.Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation and other reliefs sought in his statement of claim
  3. 3.What orders ought the Court to make in determination of the appeal, including orders on costs

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether minor procedural infractions render a termination unfair under section 45 of the Employment Act

Holding

No. The termination was substantively justified for gross misconduct, and the lapses (short show-cause period, unserved charge sheet) did not offend section 41 or invalidate the process.

Reasoning

The court applied the twin-requirement test from its prior decisions: fairness demands both substantive justification and procedural fairness. Here the employee received a show-cause letter, attended a disciplinary hearing, presented his defence, was notified of the decision, and had his appeal considered. Although the HR Manual procedure was imperfectly followed, the deviations were minor and the core requirements of section 41 of the Employment Act were satisfied, so the dismissal was not unfair.

p. 7
02

Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation and other reliefs

Holding

No. Having found the dismissal was not unfair, the court held nothing turned on the claim for compensation and declined to disturb the trial court's refusal to award it.

Reasoning

Compensation under section 49 follows a finding of unfair termination. Because the court found the summary dismissal was justified both substantively and procedurally, the entitlement to compensation did not arise, and the trial Judge's finding that the appellant was undeserving of compensation was correct.

p. 8
03

Whether the trial Judge acted injudiciously in ordering each party to bear their own costs

Holding

No. Departure from the general rule that costs follow the event requires reasons patent on record, and the Judge's findings on procedural shortfalls justified the order.

Reasoning

The court endorsed the principle that costs follow the event but that a court departing from it must give reasons apparent on the record. Since the trial Judge found the disciplinary procedure fell short of certain HR Manual requirements even though this did not invalidate the termination, his direction that each party bear their own costs was a judicial exercise of discretion.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • For a termination of employment to be fair, both substantive justification and procedural fairness are required; adhering to one and contravening the other renders the dismissal wrongful.
  • Minor procedural infractions in a disciplinary process, where the employee is notified of the reasons, given an opportunity to show cause, heard, and allowed an appeal, do not render a substantively justified termination unfair under section 45 of the Employment Act.
  • Where an appeal is needlessly instituted and fails, costs follow the event and the respondent is entitled to the costs of the appeal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.The respondent shall have the costs of the appeal

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority
majority
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Cause No. 302 of 2016
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal under its appellate mandate

Relief refused

#

Compensation for unfair termination under section 49 of the Employment Act

The dismissal was substantively justified and the procedural lapses did not render the termination unfair; the appellant was undeserving of compensation

p. 7

Costs of the suit as claimed by the appellant

The trial Judge was not at fault in directing that each party bear their own costs given his findings on the disciplinary procedure

p. 8

Costs

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent; at the trial below each party was ordered to bear their own costs, which direction the Court of Appeal upheld

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

For a termination of employment to pass the fairness test, there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
p. 7Twin test for fairness of termination
Indeed, there was substantive justification therefor, and the procedure adopted did not substantially ofiend the provisions of section 41 of the Act.
p. 7Minor lapses do not invalidate substantively justified termination
Having concluded that (i) the appellant's summary dismissal was by no means unfair; (ii) that he was not entitled to compensation as prayed; and (iii) that the learned Judge was not at fault in directing that the parties bear their own costs of the suit, we find that this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
p. 8Disposition - dismissal of the appeal
The event being that the appeal fails as having been needlessly instituted, the respondent shall have the costs of the appeal. Orders accordingly.
Costs of the appeal

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The grounds of appeal contain repeated numbering, with ground 2 appearing three times, and the extract of section 45 of the Employment Act presents sub-paragraphs in a garbled order.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Echwa v Kenya Airports Authority (Civil Appeal E099 of 2021) [2024] KECA 828 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Employment and Labour Relations Court Cause No. 302 of 2016 (on appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/828/eng@2024-07-12

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