George Kariuki Ngugi & 2 others v Brolaz East Africa Limited [2014] KEELRC 73 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Industrial Court dismissed three employees' claims, ruling their employer followed proper disciplinary procedure before summarily dismissing them for gross misconduct.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether termination was wrongful, unfair and unlawful
Termination was lawful; the respondent complied with Sections 41, 42, 44 and 45 of the Employment Act
The claimants were notified of disciplinary proceedings which took place, were given opportunity to respond, and failed to rebut the evidence of gross misconduct. Allegations of fraud were investigated following complaints and anonymous emails. The court held the respondents addressed and complied with the law and procedure to the hilt, finding no unfair termination under Section 45.
Whether the claimants are entitled to the relief sought
No relief awarded as the primary claim failed
Having lost their case for unfair, wrongful and unlawful termination, the claimants could not succeed on the ancillary reliefs of severance pay, compensation, notice pay, interest and general damages.
Whether the respondent failed to remit income tax deductions for 2011
Claim failed for want of proof
Despite the claim of non-remittance, no evidence was adduced to prove it. The respondent submitted there were no tax balances with the Kenya Revenue Authority and the claimants did not rebut that position, so the court did not need to determine where any amounts were owing.
Who bears the costs
The losing party, the claimants, bear the costs
The matter was massive and contested and costs were incurred; the general principle that costs follow the event applied.
Legal principles established
#- An employer who notifies an employee of disciplinary proceedings, hears and considers their representations, and dismisses for gross misconduct with reasons set out in the dismissal letter complies with the procedural requirements of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the consolidated causes (Cause Nos. 1338, 1436 and 1437 of 2012) with costs to the respondent
- 2.Costs borne by the claimants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations jurisdiction of the Industrial Court of Kenya (Employment Act, 2007)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Banking, Insurance & Finance Union (K) v Co-operative Bank of Kenya [2019] KEELRC 1794 (KLR)[2019] KEELRC 1794 (KLR)19 Mar 2019
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George Kariuki Ngugi & 2 others v Brolaz East Africa Limited [2014] KEELRC 73 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Cause No. 1437 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/73/eng@2014-12-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.