Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 2002 of 2012· [2013] KEELRC 793 (KLR)

Patrick Wambua Mulela v Athi River Steel Plant Limited [2013] KEELRC 793 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
30 September 2013
MMM. Mbaru
2,154 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan worker who walked off the job over disputed work targets lost his unfair dismissal claim because the court found he abandoned employment himself.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent as a mason in March 2009, claimed he was unfairly and summarily terminated on 5th October 2011 after failing to produce written records of work done against set daily targets, and sought terminal dues of Kshs.225,018.00 for notice, leave and compensation. The respondent denied terminating him, asserting that following a meeting over unmet work targets, the claimant and colleagues went to the Labour Office at Athi River; a labour officer intervened on 16th October 2011, revised targets were agreed and other employees resumed work, but the claimant never returned. The court found that while the claimant was justified in raising concerns about unreasonable work targets, no termination occurred. The claimant could not identify who allegedly verbally terminated him or the words used, and unlike his colleagues he did not seek the labour officer's intervention or wait for feedback. He returned his overall and helmet and abandoned the employment on his own understanding. The court held that a work environment requires dialogue, that employees and employers give each other notice, and that the claimant's conduct amounted to absconding duty, for which the respondent could not be made liable. The claim was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant was summarily dismissed

Holding

The court found no termination occurred; the claimant misunderstood the employer's words and abandoned the job himself

Reasoning

The claimant could not recall who allegedly verbally terminated him or the exact words used. Other employees in the same meeting went to the labour office and later resumed work under agreed targets, while the claimant alone concluded he had been terminated, returned his tools and never went back. The court found his conduct amounted to absconding duty, not dismissal.

p. 4
02

Entitlement to terminal dues

Holding

No dues were payable as the respondent never terminated the claimant and the claimant abandoned the employment

Reasoning

Terminal dues such as notice pay flow from a termination by either party under section 35 of the Employment Act. Since the court found the respondent never terminated the claimant and the claimant instead left without notice, no entitlement to notice pay, leave pay or compensation arose. The claimant also did not pursue service pay as an NSSF member.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Termination of an employment contract requires written notice under section 35 of the Employment Act, and this notice is the basis for terminal dues
  • Disputes over work targets and employment conditions should be resolved through dialogue or the intervention of a labour officer rather than an employee unilaterally abandoning employment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the claimant's claim
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 35
Jurisdiction invoked
Industrial Court of Kenya jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Patrick Wambua Mulela v Athi River Steel Plant Limited [2013] KEELRC 793 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Cause No. 2002 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/793/eng@2013-09-30

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