Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (Cause filed 29 August 2012, Industrial Court, Mombasa)· [2013] KEELRC 622 (KLR)

James Chege & 6 others v Aqua Plumbing Company Limited [2013] KEELRC 622 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
12 July 2013
2,571 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled seven workers were unfairly fired and awarded them service pay, notice pay, leave dues and compensation—even though they never had written contracts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Seven Claimants sued Aqua Plumbing Company Ltd claiming unfair dismissal. They testified they were employed between 2004 and 2006 without written contracts, were retained under new terms when the Respondent changed its name to Aqualine Plumbing Ltd in August 2011, and were verbally dismissed on 5 March 2012 by the Respondent's Director after demanding outstanding final dues. The Respondent entered appearance but filed no defence and did not attend the hearing; the court allowed the hearing to proceed after confirming service of a hearing notice. Applying section 47(5) of the Employment Act, the court found the Claimants discharged their burden and that the Respondent failed to comply with sections 35, 41, 43 and 45, concluding the dismissals were procedurally and substantively unfair. The court set out the correct formula for computing service pay (daily rate = basic salary plus house allowance divided by 26; multiplied by 15 days per completed year and years served) and awarded each Claimant service pay, one month's pay in lieu of notice, accrued leave and one month's compensation under section 49(1)(c), holding that non-pleading of compensation is no bar to the statutory remedy. The Respondent was ordered to issue Certificates of Service within 10 days. There was no order as to costs. Judgment delivered in Mombasa on 12 July 2013 by Justice Radido Stephen.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the dismissals were unfair

Holding

The dismissals were both procedurally and substantively unfair because no notice was given, no reasons explained, and the employer failed to justify the terminations

Reasoning

The Claimants were paid monthly and were entitled to written notice under section 35. Section 41 required the employer to explain reasons and hear representations before termination. Sections 43 and 45 required the employer to prove valid and fair reasons. The Respondent, having been served, did not appear and did not discharge these obligations. The court therefore concluded the dismissals were unfair both procedurally and substantively.

p. 3
02

Entitlement to service pay

Holding

Service pay awarded at 15 days' pay per completed year, no evidence that Claimants fell within the section 35(5) exceptions

Reasoning

Section 35(5) entitles a terminated employee to service pay unless they are NSSF contributors, members of a pension/provident fund, or covered by a CBA or more favourable scheme. No evidence of any exception was adduced. Since the Act fixes no rate, the court applied the customary 15 days per year formula based on daily rate derived from basic salary plus house allowance divided by 26.

p. 4
03

Accrued leave

Holding

Each Claimant entitled to payment of accrued leave because the employer kept no leave records

Reasoning

Section 10 obliges employers to specify leave entitlement in writing, and section 10(7) shifts the burden of disproving an alleged term to the employer who fails to produce written particulars. Section 74(1)(f) requires record-keeping of leave taken and due. The statutory minimum is 21 days annual leave per 12 months of service. The Respondent never participated in the proceedings, so the claims could not be controverted.

p. 4
04

Compensation although not pleaded

Holding

One month gross wages compensation awarded to each Claimant under section 49(1)(c) despite not being pleaded

Reasoning

Compensation is a statutory remedy for unfair termination alongside reinstatement and re-engagement. The Claimants were lay persons without legal training, and their failure to plead compensation should not bar the award where unfairness is established. The court considered the thirteen factors in section 49(4) and awarded each Claimant one month's gross wages at termination.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The burden of proving unfair termination rests on the employee, while the burden of justifying the grounds for termination rests on the employer (section 47(5) Employment Act)
  • Where an employer fails to produce written particulars of employment, the burden of disproving an alleged term falls on the employer (sections 10(7) and 74(1)(f))
  • Failure to plead compensation under section 49(1)(c) is no bar to an award of compensation once termination is found unfair
  • Service pay is calculated by converting monthly wages (basic salary plus house allowance) into a daily rate by dividing by 26, multiplying by 15 days per completed year, then by years served

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the termination of each Claimant's employment was unfair
  2. 2.Award of service pay, one month pay in lieu of notice, accrued leave and one month compensation to each Claimant as itemised in paragraph 39 (totalling Kshs 166,788, Kshs 186,960, Kshs 152,197, Kshs 146,616, Kshs 146,616, Kshs 98,464 and Kshs 133,824 respectively)
  3. 3.Respondent to issue each Claimant with a Certificate of Service within 10 days
  4. 4.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 47(5)
  • Employment Actsection 35 (including 35(1)(c) and 35(5))
  • Employment Actsection 41
  • Employment Actsections 43 and 45
  • Employment Actsection 10 (including 10(7))
  • Employment Actsection 74(1)(f)
  • Employment Actsection 49(1)(c) and 49(4)
  • Employment Actsection 36
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations dispute heard under the Employment Act; the court did not cite a specific jurisdictional article

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "James Chege & 6 others v Aqua Plumbing Company Limited [2013] KEELRC 622 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Not stated in judgment (Cause filed 29 August 2012, Industrial Court, Mombasa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/622/eng@2013-07-12

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