Stephen Njoroge Kigochi v Martin Njoroge Wanyoike & Another [2014] KEELRC 357 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a doctor personally liable for unfairly firing his employee, but awarded far less than the full compensation claimed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Respondent, Dr. Wanyoike, was properly sued alongside the 2nd Respondent company
The 1st Respondent was properly joined; the statutory definition of 'Employer' extends to natural persons who recruit, control and remunerate employees, and the doctrine of corporate separateness has limits in employment disputes
The Court relied on the uniform definitions of 'Employer' in the Employment Act, Industrial Court Act and Labour Relations Act, which include agents, managers and factors. It held that employees rarely know the multiple legal personalities behind their employer's business and should be given the greatest latitude in joining entities liable for employment wrongs. It noted the respondents never availed certificates of registration to clarify the Clinic's form.
Whether the termination was fair in substance and procedure
The termination was flawed on both substantive and procedural grounds; the Respondents interchanged reasons, invoking retrenchment while citing integrity and performance concerns, and did not follow Sections 40, 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
Dr. Wanyoike's testimony on the reason for termination was mixed up and unconvincing. Retrenchment cannot be a response to disciplinary concerns nor a 'soft landing'. The Respondents neither followed the redundancy provisions of Section 40 nor the termination provisions of Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, and no warnings were issued.
What remedy was appropriate
The Court granted Kshs. 300,000 on top of the Kshs. 106,947 already received, based on the parties' own settlement proposals, in lieu of the 12 months' compensation claimed
Although the Court faulted the reasons and procedure of termination, it took account of the special, quasi-familial employment relationship forged through Starehe Boys Centre ties, and the fact that the Claimant had accepted termination in principle while negotiating a golden parachute. It exercised its discretion to impose a remedy based on the parties' own proposals at the time their dialogue broke down.
Legal principles established
#- Directors, managers and agents of companies qualify as 'Employers' under Section 2 of the Employment Act and can bear employment liability notwithstanding corporate separateness
- The burden of establishing the nature of an employer's registration should not be placed on an employee
- Retrenchment is not a disciplinary sanction and cannot be based on an employee's fault, poor performance or questionable integrity
Court orders
#- 1.Dr. Wanyoike and his Clinic [Respondents], shall within 30 days of the delivery of this Award, pay to the Claimant a total sum of Kshs. 300,000 in full and final settlement of the Claim
- 2.The Respondents to release the Claimant's Certificate of Service to him forthwith
- 3.No order on the costs and interest
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations dispute under the Industrial Court Act 2011 and Employment Act 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Muthoni v Barium Capital Limited & another (Cause E199 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2345 (KLR)[2024] KEELRC 2345 (KLR)30 Sept 2024
- George Musyoki v Sarova Hotels [2014] KEELRC 40 (KLR)[2014] KEELRC 40 (KLR)5 Dec 2014followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stephen Njoroge Kigochi v Martin Njoroge Wanyoike & Another [2014] KEELRC 357 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Cause Number 1355 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/357/eng@2014-07-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.