Ruth Wambui Murunyu v Indu Farm (Epz) Limited & 2 others [2014] KEELRC 1058 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An employer with a valid reason to fire can still lose in court if it skips the mandatory disciplinary procedure under Kenyan employment law.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Valid reason for termination under Section 43 of the Employment Act
The Respondent established a valid reason for termination based on the Claimant's threatening of supervisors
The Court assessed the charges in the summary dismissal letter and found the Claimant's denial general. On the charge of threatening supervisors Gladys Njeri and Lillian Mutisya, the Court found the three witnesses called by the Respondent consistent and truthful, and held that this single charge was serious enough to warrant termination, satisfying Section 43.
Fairness of termination procedure under Section 41
The termination was procedurally unfair despite a valid reason
Section 41 requires explanation of reasons to the employee in a language they understand, presence of a fellow employee or representative, and hearing of explanations. The Respondent also had an Employee Handbook with a disciplinary procedure required by Section 12 of the Act, but no evidence showed either was applied. The termination was therefore unfair for want of due procedure.
Reliefs for unfair termination
Compensation of six months' salary awarded; other heads of claim failed
Compensation was awarded for procedural unfairness only. Claims for notice pay, salary, leave and public holiday pay failed as they were paid on termination; severance and service pay failed because there was no redundancy and the Claimant was an NSSF member; overtime was unproved and specific performance was not merited.
Liability of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents
The case against the CEO and Managing Director was dismissed for lack of any claim against them
The Court found no basis for joining the Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director personally, as no claim was made against either of them despite their being named as parties.
Legal principles established
#- Under Section 43 of the Employment Act, 2007 the employer bears the burden of proving a valid reason for termination, failing which the termination is deemed unfair
- A termination may be substantively justified yet procedurally unfair where the employer fails to comply with Section 41 of the Employment Act and its own disciplinary procedure
Court orders
#- 1.Award to the Claimant of Kshs. 52,800 being six months' salary in compensation for unfair termination of employment
- 2.Dismissal of the claims for salary in lieu of notice, salary for days worked, leave pay, public holiday pay, severance pay, service pay, overtime and salary for the period out of employment
- 3.Dismissal of the Claimant's case against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents
- 4.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Industrial Court of Kenya jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (unfair termination claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ruth Wambui Murunyu v Indu Farm (Epz) Limited & 2 others [2014] KEELRC 1058 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Cause No 111 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/1058/eng@2014-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.