Mary Nafula Ingati v Ruth Hankel Martha & another [2014] KEELRC 1291 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that sacking domestic workers on suspicion, without notice or a hearing, was unfair and awarded them compensation and long-service gratuity.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissals were for a valid reason and with due procedure
The dismissals were not for a valid reason and no procedure was observed; they were procedurally unfair and violated Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
The Respondents dismissed the Claimants on mere suspicion of theft without any investigation, notice or hearing. The court did not believe that long-serving employees who had worked diligently for 23 and 9 years could suddenly become thieves. The Respondents also had an ulterior motive of denying the 1st Claimant long-service gratuity, having never invested in a pension scheme or registered the Claimants with NSSF.
Entitlement to severance pay/gratuity
Both Claimants, not registered with NSSF and not paid severance, were entitled to gratuity at 15 days salary per completed year of service
The court found the Claimants were not registered with NSSF and received no severance on termination, and awarded gratuity at 15 days salary per year for 23 and 9 years respectively. The Respondents' payment of Kshs.400,000/= to the 1st Claimant on 3rd December 2011 was not proved by any evidence, as the Respondents called no witness and produced no documentary evidence in rebuttal.
Quantum of compensation for unfair dismissal
Ten months' salary compensation awarded to each Claimant under Section 49(1)(c)
In exercising discretion under Section 49(1)(c), the court considered the length of service (23 and 9 years), the fact that the Respondents never increased the Claimants' salaries, and never invested in any pension scheme or registered them with NSSF, conduct it found detrimental to their welfare, and the summary dismissal on mere suspicion without notice.
Evidentiary burden where Respondents adduce no evidence
Claims proved on a balance of probability where unchallenged, save for withdrawn claims and time-barred portions
The Respondents did not call any witness and produced no documentary evidence in rebuttal. The court held that, other than claims withdrawn during testimony and portions exceeding the six-year limitation period, the claims as set out in the statements of claim were proved on a balance of probability.
Legal principles established
#- Summary dismissal on mere suspicion without notice and without valid reason or procedure is procedurally unfair under the Employment Act
- An employee dismissed without valid reason or procedure is entitled to compensation under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.1st Claimant awarded Kshs.294,000/= comprising gratuity/severance pay Kshs.138,000/=, one month salary in lieu of leave Kshs.12,000/=, one month salary in lieu of notice Kshs.12,000/=, ten months salary compensation Kshs.120,000/= and salary for May Kshs.12,000/=
- 2.2nd Claimant awarded Kshs.210,000/= comprising gratuity/severance pay Kshs.54,000/=, one month salary in lieu of leave Kshs.12,000/=, one month salary in lieu of notice Kshs.12,000/=, ten months salary compensation Kshs.120,000/= and salary for November Kshs.12,000/=
- 3.The 1st and 2nd Respondents jointly and severally to pay the respective awards with interest at court rates from the dates of dismissal until payment in full
- 4.Respondents to pay the costs of the suit
- 5.Respondents to provide certificates of service to the 1st and 2nd Claimants
- 6.Claims for payment of untaken rest days, public holidays and NSSF contribution dismissed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Sections 43, 45(1) and 2(a) and (e), 49(1)(c))
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.
- Mary Ambogo Odando v Adam Singindura Marjan & another [2020] KEELRC 1076 (KLR)[2020] KEELRC 1076 (KLR)12 May 2020
- Azibetah Ngonyele Mudagale v Mary Nyaluok Nyuon [2017] KEELRC 531[2017] KEELRC 531 (KLR)31 Oct 2017applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mary Nafula Ingati v Ruth Hankel Martha & another [2014] KEELRC 1291 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Cause No. 101 of 2012 (consolidated with Cause No. 102 of 2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/1291/eng@2014-08-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.