Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No. 733 of 2012· [2013] KEELRC 611 (KLR)

Robinson Mutembei v Akiba School [2013] KEELRC 611 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
14 May 2013
2,948 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

#

A Kenyan court awarded a school bus driver over Kshs.428,000 because his school dismissed him without a hearing, paid below minimum wage, and made unlawful salary deductions.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, Robinson Mungai Mutembei, sued Akiba School for wrongful termination of his employment as a bus driver, claiming Kshs.228,650 in terminal dues and maximum compensation of Kshs.102,000. He testified he was dismissed after objecting to gate keeping duties and without reason, while the Respondent's three witnesses maintained the termination was for gross misconduct including loss of vehicle equipment. The court, Maureen Onyango J, framed two issues: whether the termination was unfair and whether the reliefs were due. The termination letter cited loss of equipment, poor co-ordination, lack of rapport and failure to respect responsibilities, and referred to verbal warnings and directive memos, but no witness mentioned the warnings, no memos were produced, and no hearing was afforded. The loss-of-equipment incident had already been surcharged in 2009, amounting to double jeopardy. The dismissal was held unfair both substantively and procedurally under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act. On reliefs, the court awarded Kshs.10,824 in service pay (computed on the statutory minimum wage), Kshs.70,304 as overtime for one year of gate keeping beyond the statutory 52-hour week, Kshs.21,000 travelling allowance, Kshs.10,000 refund for the jack and spanner deduction, Kshs.7,000 refund of unlawful van remittance, Kshs.256,709.25 house allowance underpayments, and Kshs.52,495.20 compensation (3 months rather than 12 months sought), totaling Kshs.428,332.25, plus an order for a certificate of service. Judgment was entered for the Claimant on most heads, though reduced on quantum.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination was substantively and procedurally fair

Holding

The dismissal was unfair both substantively and procedurally: no hearing was afforded, the cited grounds were vague, no directive memos or verbal warnings were proved, and the loss-of-equipment ground was an old incident already surcharged

Reasoning

The termination letter referred to verbal warnings and directive memos, but none of the Respondent's three witnesses mentioned the warnings and no memos were in the documents bundle. The letter did not refer to any hearing. The grounds of poor co-ordination, lack of rapport and failure to respect responsibilities were non-specific. The loss of equipment had been surcharged in 2009, making the 2011 dismissal a double jeopardy and punishment after an inordinate lapse of about two years, contrary to Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.

p. 4
02

Entitlement to service pay

Holding

Service pay should be computed on the last salary over the whole period, and the court awarded the difference of Kshs.10,824 over what was paid

Reasoning

The Respondent paid Kshs.12,000 in service pay across 2008-2010 in small instalments. The court held service pay should be based on the last salary for the whole period and, using the statutory minimum wage for a heavy commercial vehicle driver of Kshs.15,216, computed service pay at Kshs.22,824 (15,216 x 15 ÷ 3), awarding the difference of Kshs.10,824.

p. 5
03

Whether gate keeping dues were payable

Holding

The claim was recharacterised as overtime for hours worked beyond the statutory 52-hour week, and one year's overtime of Kshs.70,304 awarded

Reasoning

Both parties confirmed the Claimant worked on average from 6.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m., doing gate keeping during those hours - about 72 hours a week instead of the statutory 52 under the Regulation of Wages (General) Order. The court computed his hourly rate from the minimum wage and awarded overtime for one year only, treating the other two years as covering periods when he was off duty, on trips or on leave.

p. 5
04

Entitlement to travelling allowance

Holding

Claim of Kshs.21,000 proved and awarded in full

Reasoning

The Regulation of Wages (General) Order entitles an employee to travelling allowance when working outside the normal duty station. RW1 and RW2 confirmed the Claimant was never paid travelling allowance, and the Respondent did not contest that he was on duty away from his duty station on the dates mentioned. The court found the claim proved and awarded Kshs.21,000 as claimed.

p. 5
05

Lawfulness of salary deductions for lost jack and spanner and van remittance

Holding

Both deductions were unlawful and refunds of Kshs.10,000 and Kshs.7,000 were ordered

Reasoning

There was no evidence the Claimant was asked to explain the loss of the jack and spanner or that he failed to give a reasonable explanation, and the Respondent did not deny recovering the Kshs.10,000 from his salary. The Kshs.7,000 van remittance deducted from terminal dues was merely reflected as 'lost equipments' with no particulars. Deductions are only permissible under Section 19 of the Employment Act.

p. 6
06

Entitlement to house allowance

Holding

Since the salary was consolidated, underpayment was computed against the minimum wage inclusive of 15% house allowance, and Kshs.256,709.25 awarded

Reasoning

Section 31 of the Employment Act requires an employer to provide accommodation or a reasonable house allowance, but a consolidated wage may suffice. Comparing the Claimant's consolidated salary with the minimum wage for a heavy commercial vehicle driver inclusive of 15% house allowance across the three periods of employment, the court computed total underpayments of Kshs.256,709.25 and awarded that sum.

p. 6
07

Quantum of compensation for unfair dismissal

Holding

12 months' compensation sought was excessive; 3 months' gross salary (Kshs.52,495.20) awarded based on the minimum consolidated wage

Reasoning

The Claimant sought the maximum 12 months' salary compensation of Kshs.102,000. Considering his service of just under 3 years, the court found 3 months' salary reasonable, computed at Kshs.17,498.40 per month (the minimum consolidated wage for a heavy commercial driver), awarding Kshs.52,495.20.

p. 7
08

Certificate of service

Holding

Respondent directed to issue a certificate of service under Section 51 of the Employment Act

Reasoning

Section 51 of the Employment Act requires every employer to issue a certificate of service to any employee who has served more than 4 weeks. The court directed the Respondent to issue the certificate to the Claimant.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • For a termination to be fair under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act, the employee must be informed of specific incidents and given an opportunity to respond to the charges
  • Disciplining an employee for an incident already surcharged constitutes double jeopardy
  • An employer may not deduct money from an employee's salary except as provided under Section 19 of the Employment Act
  • An employee required to work beyond the statutory 52 hours a week is entitled to overtime rather than a discrete gate-keeping allowance

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant against the Respondent for Kshs.428,332.25 in total
  2. 2.Service pay of Kshs.10,824
  3. 3.Overtime for gate keeping duties of Kshs.70,304
  4. 4.Travelling allowance of Kshs.21,000
  5. 5.Refund of unrefunded money of Kshs.10,000
  6. 6.Refund of van remittance deduction of Kshs.7,000
  7. 7.House allowance (underpayments) of Kshs.256,709.25
  8. 8.Compensation for unfair termination of Kshs.52,495.20 (3 months' gross salary)
  9. 9.Respondent directed to issue a certificate of service to the Claimant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 45
  • Employment ActSection 19
  • Employment ActSection 31
  • Employment ActSection 51
  • Regulation of Wages (General) Order52-hour working week and travelling allowance provisions
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Industrial Court (Employment Act, Sections 19, 31, 41, 45, 51)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Robinson Mutembei v Akiba School [2013] KEELRC 611 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Cause No. 733 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/611/eng@2013-05-14

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