Kenneth Kipkoech Korir v Inspectorate [E.A.] Limited [2014] KEELRC 550 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled the worker quit his job, not that he was fired, but still ordered the employer to pay leave, rent and service benefits.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Continuous employment across a domestic and business set-up
The Claimant was in continuous employment from January 2006, with the Kyalos and their company jointly liable as employers
The Court found the Claimant worked for the Kyalos as a domestic servant from 2006 and was absorbed into their company in 2008. The business was the vehicle of the couple, who were its directors. The legal separateness between the Kyalos and their company was, for employment purposes, fictitious; Section 2 of the Employment Act 2007 renders the husband, wife, household, directors and company all liable as employers.
Whether termination was unfair and unlawful
The Respondent did not terminate the contract; the Claimant deserted duty after rejecting a letter of suspension, so the declaration of unfair termination was refused
The Court believed the suspension letter was delivered to the Claimant, who threw it at the Director's desk and stormed out, never returning. The Claimant's careless handling of samples amounted to gross misconduct under Section 44(4)(c), and his desertion initiated termination. He was, however, still entitled to consideration of terminal benefits.
House rent allowance
The Claimant was entitled to house rent allowance at 15% of basic pay as no written contract showed consolidation of basic pay and house allowance
Section 31 of the Employment Act 2007 requires the employer to provide housing or pay rent, unless the contract consolidates basic pay with house allowance. Section 10 requires such consolidation to be detailed in a written contract. The pay slips described the Kshs. 19,000 as basic pay and no contract showing consolidation was produced, so house rent was assessed at 15% under the Wage Orders.
Legal principles established
#- Where a family employs a domestic servant and extends his services to the family business, the domestic and business set-ups are treated as one continuous employment and the husband, wife, household, directors and company are all liable as employers
- Performing work carelessly and improperly constitutes gross misconduct justifying termination under Section 44(4)(c) of the Employment Act 2007
- An employee subscribed to N.S.S.F is ineligible for service pay under Section 35(6) of the Employment Act 2007
- A Certificate of Service must be issued to every employee whose contract is terminated, regardless of the manner of termination
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant service pay at Kshs. 3,461
- 2.The Respondent shall pay annual leave pay at Kshs. 40,922
- 3.The Respondent shall pay arrears of house rent allowance at Kshs. 136,200 - total Kshs. 180,583 - to be paid within 30 days of the delivery of the Award
- 4.The Respondent to avail to the Claimant his Certificate of Service forthwith
- 5.No order on the costs and interest
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference to the Industrial Court under the Employment Act 2007 in respect of unfair and unlawful termination (Issue in Dispute: Unfair and Unlawful Termination)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenneth Kipkoech Korir v Inspectorate [E.A.] Limited [2014] KEELRC 550 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Cause Number 2519 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/550/eng@2014-04-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.