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· [2013] KEELRC 640 (KLR)

Shabiri Wesonga v Hill School Academy [2013] KEELRC 640 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
17 July 2013
1,177 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded a teacher KSh 420,590 because his employer fired him by phone without a hearing, proving documentation and fair procedure matter.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, Shabiri Wesonga, sued his former employers, who ran a school where he taught from 2005, for wrongful and unfair termination and failure to pay terminal benefits. He claimed that on 12.2.2012 the respondents' director terminated his services by phone, without a warning letter or notice to show cause. The respondents denied dismissing him, contending he had absconded duty after assaulting a colleague. RW1, the director, denied making the call or sacking him and disowned her advocate's letter of 21.2.2012 alleging the assault; RW2, the manager, said the claimant had not been sacked to-date. The court framed two issues: whether the claimant was dismissed or absconded, and whether he was entitled to remedies. It found the desertion allegation a fabrication, noting the duty rosta, the claimant's advocate's letter of 14.2.2012 and Safaricom call records showed he was in school and in contact with respondents from 12th to 14th February 2012. The claimant was dismissed unprocedurally without a hearing or notice, contrary to Section 42(1) of the Employment Act 2007, Article 50(1) of the Constitution and ILO Recommendation 119(4). Judgment was entered for notice pay (Ksh 30,700), 21 days' leave (Ksh 21,490) and 12 months' salary compensation (Ksh 368,400), totalling KSH 420,590 less statutory deductions. Overtime was refused for want of proof, and gratuity was barred under Section 35(6) as the claimant contributed to NSSF. A certificate of service and costs were also ordered.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant was dismissed or absconded duty

Holding

The claimant was dismissed unprocedurally; the desertion allegation was a fabrication

Reasoning

The respondents' advocate's letter of 21.2.2012 alleged assault of a colleague, yet RW1 denied giving such instructions; the alleged victim was never called as a witness and no charges were preferred. Evidence including the duty rosta, advocate's letter of 14.2.2012 and Safaricom call printout showed the claimant was in school and in contact with the respondents from 12th to 14th February 2012, making desertion implausible.

p. 2
02

Whether the termination was fair and lawful

Holding

The dismissal was unfair and unjustified as the claimant was not accorded a hearing nor given notice

Reasoning

The claimant was dismissed without a warning letter or notice to show cause and without being heard. This breached Section 42(1) of the Employment Act 2007, Article 50(1) of the Constitution on fair hearing, and ILO Recommendation 119(4) on fair hearing before dismissal.

p. 2
03

What remedies the claimant is entitled to

Holding

Notice pay, unpaid leave and 12 months' salary as compensation were awarded; overtime and gratuity were refused

Reasoning

The court found the claimant entitled to the remedies sought, awarding one month's salary in lieu of notice, 21 days' leave pay and compensation equivalent to 12 months' salary for the unlawful termination. Overtime failed for lack of proof of computation, and gratuity was barred because the claimant contributed to NSSF under Section 35(6) of the Employment Act.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must, before terminating employment on grounds of misconduct, poor performance or physical incapacity, explain the reasons to the employee in a language the employee understands, per Section 42(1) of the Employment Act
  • Failure to accord an employee a hearing before dismissal contravenes Section 42(1) of the Employment Act and Article 50(1) of the Constitution, rendering the dismissal unfair and unjustified

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Payment of 1 month salary in lieu of notice of Ksh 30,700
  2. 2.Payment of 21 days leave of Ksh 21,490
  3. 3.Compensation equivalent to 12 months salary for unlawful termination of Ksh 368,400, total KSH 420,590.00 less statutory deductions
  4. 4.Respondents to issue the claimant with a certificate of service
  5. 5.Respondents to pay costs of the case

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 42(1)
  • Employment ActSection 35(6)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 50(1)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations dispute under the Employment Act 2007 and Article 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Shabiri Wesonga v Hill School Academy [2013] KEELRC 640 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/640/eng@2013-07-17

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