Catherine Muthoni Wairimu v Walter Reif [National Chairman of The Pubs, Entertainment and Restaurants Association of Kenya], Nasser Lalji [National Treasurer] & Njeri Kamau [Coast Region Chairperson] (Cause 458 of 2014) [2015] KEELRC 544 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded an employee 12 months' salary because her employer fired her without valid reasons or a proper disciplinary hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether there were valid reasons for termination (failure to maintain and recruit members)
No valid reasons established; without a register of members the allegations were mere allegations
The Respondents claimed membership dwindled and the Claimant failed to recruit, but produced no register of members or membership curve to substantiate the numbers. The target of recruiting four members a month while she alone manned the Mombasa office and performed other duties was unrealistic and not reasonable, verifiable or achievable, so the first two grounds failed.
Whether the Claimant's failure to answer the Chairlady's calls amounted to insubordination
Occasional failure to pick a call by a sole employee did not constitute insubordination
Applying Section 44(4)(d)(e) of the Employment Act, insubordination requires constant and intentional refusal to obey a reasonable order given with proper authority. The Claimant answered whenever she could; the occasional failure of a single employee manning the office and outfield to pick a superior's call did not fit that description.
Whether the Claimant was accorded a fair hearing under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
No hearing in the form contemplated by the law was granted; procedural guarantees were not met
Warnings, a show-cause letter and attendance at the AGM did not amount to a hearing under Sections 41 and 45. A proper disciplinary hearing requires a specific panel, a charge sheet, charges read in a language understood by the employee, an opportunity to respond and defend, the right to be accompanied by a workmate or union representative, and consideration of representations. None of these procedural guarantees were afforded.
Ulterior motive in the termination
The Court was left with an impression of an ulterior motive, given the timing after maternity leave and the suggestion that her replacement was related to an Association officer
The Claimant was a perfect employee before maternity leave, and the Respondents did not firmly discount the suggestion that the new Executive Officer was a relative of an officer. This reinforced the Court's view that the termination was not justified on the grounds given.
Annual leave balance claim
Allowed in part; the Claimant took 3 months' maternity leave, not 2, so she was granted Kshs. 7,492 for 10.5 days' leave balance
Section 29 of the Employment Act entitles a woman to 3 months' maternity leave with full pay, not 2. Recalculating, the proportionate claim for 6 months yielded 10.5 days at a daily rate of Kshs. 713.57, resulting in Kshs. 7,492.
Legal principles established
#- Performance standards imposed on an employee must be reasonable, understandable, verifiable, measurable, equitable and achievable.
- Insubordination under Section 44(4)(d)(e) of the Employment Act occurs where an employee constantly and intentionally refuses to obey a reasonable direct or implied order given by proper authority.
- Issuing warnings and a notice to show cause does not amount to the hearing contemplated by Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act; a disciplinary hearing requires a specific panel, charge sheet, reading of charges in a language understood by the employee, an opportunity to respond, and the right to be accompanied by a workmate or union representative.
Court orders
#- 1.Termination was flawed both in substance and procedure, and therefore unfair
- 2.The Respondents shall pay compensation for unfair termination equivalent of 12 months' salary at Kshs. 222,636; 1 month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 18,553 and annual leave pay at Kshs. 7,492 - total Kshs. 248,681
- 3.The Award shall be satisfied in full within 30 days of its delivery
- 4.No order on the costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Industrial Court [Procedure] Rules 2010, Rule 27 [1] [a]
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (8)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Onyango v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E595 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 167 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 167 (KLR)30 Jan 2025
- Muasa v China Road And Bridge Corporation (K) (Cause 2115 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 1742 (KLR)[2024] KEELRC 1742 (KLR)5 Jul 2024
- Muasa v China Road And Bridge Corporation (K) (Cause 2115 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 1742 (KLR)[2024] KEELRC 1742 (KLR)5 Jul 2024
- Odhiambo v Kenya Revenue Authority (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E893 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 467 (KLR)[2024] KEELRC 467 (KLR)1 Mar 2024applied
- Felix O Siata v Kenya Revenue Authority [2022] KEELRC 256 (KLR)[2022] KEELRC 256 (KLR)31 Mar 2022
- Felix O Siata v Kenya Revenue Authority [2022] KEELRC 256 (KLR)[2022] KEELRC 256 (KLR)31 Mar 2022
- Laureen M Nzau v Kenya Revenue Authority [2021] KEELRC 1475 (KLR)[2021] KEELRC 1475 (KLR)16 Apr 2021
- Laureen M Nzau v Kenya Revenue Authority [2021] KEELRC 1475 (KLR)[2021] KEELRC 1475 (KLR)16 Apr 2021
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Catherine Muthoni Wairimu v Walter Reif [National Chairman of The Pubs, Entertainment and Restaurants Association of Kenya], Nasser Lalji [National Treasurer] & Njeri Kamau [Coast Region Chairperson] (Cause 458 of 2014) [2015] KEELRC 544 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause Number 458 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/544/eng@2015-09-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.