Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No. 944 of 2011· [2015] KEELRC 123 (KLR)

Janet Mutheu Martin v Fun An Shop Limited [2015] KEELRC 123 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
1 December 2015
HWHellen S. Wasilwa
675 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded a cleaner 12 months' salary because her employer fired her without a valid reason or a fair hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent from 30th March 2008 as a Cleaner and Cook at its Supermarket and Restaurant at Diamond Plaza, Highridge Shopping Centre, claimed she was verbally terminated on 7th March 2011 after items were stolen from the Supermarket. She and colleagues were taken to Parklands Police Station on 27th February 2011, where another employee, Naomi Anundo, admitted the theft and the police released the Claimant as innocent. When she attempted to return to work she was turned away. Her union, the Kenya Hotels and Allied Workers Union, wrote to the Respondent without response. She claimed notice pay, accrued leave, severance pay, overtime, underpayment and compensation for unlawful termination. The Respondent denied verbal termination, contending she declined to resume duties on her own volition. The court found the Respondent's position untenable: investigations could not remain incomplete four years on, and the Respondent's failure to reply to the union's letter defeated its assertion of voluntary absence. The court held that there were no valid reasons for the termination and that the due process under Section 41 of the Employment Act was not followed, finding the termination unfair and unjustified under Section 45. The court awarded notice pay, accrued annual leave, February 2011 salary and twelve months' salary as compensation, totalling Kshs.112,170/=, plus costs and interest, and directed issuance of a Certificate of Service. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination was unfair and unjustified

Holding

The termination was unfair and unjustified under Section 45 of the Employment Act, 2007

Reasoning

The court found no valid reason for the termination since police investigations cleared the Claimant after another employee admitted the theft, and the assertion that she refused to resume duty was defeated by the union's letter three days after the verbal dismissal which the Respondent never answered. Section 41 due process was not followed.

p. 2
02

Whether the Claimant declined to resume duty on her own volition

Holding

The Respondent's assertion that the Claimant declined to resume duty was rejected

Reasoning

The court reasoned that the Claimant's union wrote to the Respondent soon after the verbal dismissal and the Respondent never responded, defeating the claim that she simply absconded. The Respondent also failed to explain why investigations into the theft remained incomplete four years later.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must prove both valid reason and fair procedure for a termination to be fair under Section 45 of the Employment Act
  • Failure to accord an employee a hearing as envisaged under Section 41 of the Employment Act renders termination unfair

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Kshs.7,478/= notice pay
  2. 2.Kshs.7,478/= annual leave earned
  3. 3.Kshs.7,478/= February 2011 salary
  4. 4.12 months' salary as compensation for unlawful termination (7,478 x 12 = 89,736/=), total award Kshs.112,170/= plus costs and interest
  5. 5.Respondent to issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 45
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the 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.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Janet Mutheu Martin v Fun An Shop Limited [2015] KEELRC 123 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No. 944 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/123/eng@2015-12-01

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.