Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Lavington Security Limited [2013] KEELRC 17 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Industrial Court ruled a security guard's dismissal for speaking to the media about low wages was unfair, awarding him compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the grounds for termination
Neither the alleged failure to return to work nor the media address was a valid ground for termination; termination was unfair
The court found no conclusive evidence that the Grievant failed to report back on 23rd May 2011, or that the Respondent communicated with him about any failure to return. The suspension was never lifted and no investigation outcome was communicated. The media address concerned labour grievances on Labour Day, with no written policy prohibiting it, so the Respondent failed to justify termination after 8 years of service.
Freedom of expression versus employer policy
The employer bore the burden of showing a written limitation on the employee's freedom to speak to the press; none existed
The court accepted freedom of expression has limitations but held it was for the Respondent to demonstrate the specific limitation placed on the Grievant. The Respondent produced no written policy barring staff from addressing the media on workplace grievances. Speaking about low wages on Labour Day was legitimate expression of labour grievances.
Burden of proof on pleaded monetary claims
Claims for leave, underpayment, overtime and gratuity failed for want of substantiation
The Grievant signed a leave form showing no carried-over leave, contradicting his claim of never going on leave. No Wage Amendment Orders, figures or particulars of underpayment or overtime were produced, and no legal or contractual basis for gratuity was identified. Only notice pay, compensation, and certificate of service survived for determination.
Legal principles established
#- An employer relying on a restriction on employees' freedom of expression must prove the existence of a written policy imposing such limitation
- Summary dismissal for publicly expressing a labour grievance would be draconian
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that termination of the Grievant's contract of employment was unfair
- 2.Respondent to pay the Grievant 10 months' salary at Kshs. 7,640 per month, total Kshs. 76,400, in compensation
- 3.Respondent to pay 1 month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 7,640
- 4.Total payment of Kshs. 84,040 through the Claimant within 30 days of delivery of the Award
- 5.Certificate of Service to issue
- 6.No order on costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference of an unfair and unlawful termination dispute to the Industrial Court (Labour relations dispute under the Labour Relations Act / Industrial Court jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Lavington Security Limited [2013] KEELRC 17 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Cause Number 1233 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/17/eng@2013-12-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.