Daniel Mulonja V Jaswant Singh & Bros Ltd [2012] KEELRC 15 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a security guard's Kshs 905,900 claim for unfair dismissal because, under the old employment law, employers did not have to follow fair-hearing rules.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the Claimant was wrongful and unlawful
The court rejected the claim that the termination was without justifiable or lawful reasons and that failure to observe natural justice rendered it unlawful
Under the repealed Employment Act, Cap 226, the rules of natural justice or the giving of reasons were not statutory obligations on employers, unlike sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act 2007. Relying on Court of Appeal decisions under the then prevailing legal framework, the Claimant could not challenge the termination on grounds of failure to observe natural justice or give reasons. The court also found insufficient evidence to establish whether the Claimant was terminated or absconded, as no evidence was led and the parties had agreed to rely on pleadings and written submissions.
Whether the Claimant was terminated or absconded from duty
The court could not determine on a balance of probabilities whether the Claimant was terminated or absconded, as no evidence was led
The parties had agreed to rely on pleadings and written submissions only, with no evidence led or tested. The court found it lacked sufficient material even on a balance of probabilities to decide between the competing claims. The court observed that under the Employment Act 2007, the Respondent would have been obliged to produce attendance records to prove the validity and fairness of the absconding ground, but the Cause fell under the repealed regime.
Legal principles established
#- Under the repealed Employment Act (Cap 226), the rules of natural justice and the duty to give reasons did not apply to termination of employment unless specifically provided for in the contract
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is dismissed with no order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction of the Industrial Court over employment causes (Cause 747N of 2009); no specific constitutional or statutory provision cited
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Daniel Mulonja V Jaswant Singh & Bros Ltd [2012] KEELRC 15 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2012). Cause 747N of 2009. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2012/15/eng@2012-11-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.