Alex Charo & 3 others v Grand China Limited & another [2015] KEELRC 667 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled four restaurant workers were unfairly sacked by phone and awarded them over Kshs. 530,000 plus interest.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Fairness of termination for reasons and procedure
The termination was unfair and unlawful; the Respondents had no valid reason and gave no procedural fairness, merely telephoning the Claimants not to report to duty.
The Claimants were employed as waiters, cleaner and chef, and their contracts were terminated on 11th April 2014 when the Respondents closed their restaurant, only reopening on 24th December 2014 with new employees. The court found no valid reason was shown and the Claimants were simply informed by phone not to report for duty. The Respondents neither filed a defence nor attended court, so there was no counterevidence, and the burden of justifying termination was not discharged under the Employment Act.
Ex parte determination on the record
The court determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010 on the Claimants' pleadings, witness statements and documents.
The Respondents filed only a Notice of Appointment of Advocates and nothing else; they were notified of mention dates and the hearing but neither challenged the claim nor attended. Proceedings were therefore ex parte and the court assessed remedies on the quantum particularised in the Statement of Claim, awarding the full amount claimed of Kshs. 530,620.
Legal principles established
#- Termination is unfair both where there is no valid reason (substantive fairness) and where the employee is not afforded procedural fairness, contrary to Sections 41, 43, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act 2007.
- Where a respondent fails to file any defence or attend court, the claim may be determined ex parte on the claimant's record and unrebutted evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that termination of the Claimants' contracts of employment was unfair and unlawful
- 2.Respondents to pay the Claimants a total of Kshs. 530,620 within 30 days, with interest of 14% from the date of delivery of the Award
- 3.Respondents to avail Certificates of Service to the Claimants forthwith
- 4.Costs to the Claimants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Industrial Court jurisdiction under the Industrial Court Act; proceedings conducted under Rule 27(1)(a) and Rule 21 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Alex Charo & 3 others v Grand China Limited & another [2015] KEELRC 667 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause Number 610 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/667/eng@2015-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.