Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (Memorandum of Claim filed 22nd May 2013)· [2015] KEELRC 1659 (KLR)

Odhore v Longhorn Kenya Limited (Cause 752 of 2013) [2015] KEELRC 1659 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
16 April 2015
2,313 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed that probationary employees enjoy full unfair dismissal protections and can be compensated when employers skip fair procedure.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed as publishing manager from 1st November 2012 on a gross salary of Kshs. 218,000/- (net Kshs. 156,886/-), was terminated on 27th March 2013 while on an extended probation period, on grounds of under-performance and noted skill gaps. He sued for unfair and unlawful termination, seeking compensation, reinstatement, pro rata leave, salary in lieu of notice, and general damages. The Respondent maintained the termination followed constant performance review and a board decision not to confirm him, and that he was owed only two weeks' salary in lieu of notice, March salary and pro rata leave, which he obstructed by failing to complete clearance. The Claimant testified he was never subjected to any formal evaluation or appraisal and alleged malice, including creation of a deputy publishing manager position. The Respondent's managing director testified to daily supervision, a January 2013 performance memorandum, and lack of improvement in identified gaps. The court found it common ground that the termination occurred during probation and that the Claimant was entitled to two weeks' salary in lieu of notice. On the law, the court followed Mercy Njoki Karingithi v Emerald Hotels and Resorts, holding that the unfair dismissal protections under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act apply in full to probationers, and awarded one month's salary as compensation for denial of procedural fairness. Leave was denied as leave is only earned after one year's service. Judgment was entered for one month's salary compensation, two weeks' salary in lieu of notice, and salary for days worked in March 2013, with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether Section 41 procedural fairness applies to probationary contracts

Holding

The court adopted the view that protections under Sections 43 and 45 apply in full to probationers, and awarded compensation because the Claimant was notified of skill gaps but not given procedural fairness.

Reasoning

The Respondent argued, relying on Danish Jalang'o, that Section 41 does not apply to probationary contracts per Section 42(1). The court instead followed Mercy Njoki Karingithi v Emerald Hotels and Resorts, where Radido J held that the protections against unfair and unlawful dismissal under Sections 43 and 45 apply in full to employees on probation. Finding the Claimant was notified of skills gaps but denied the expected procedural fairness, the court awarded one month's salary as recompense, plus terminal dues.

p. 4
02

Entitlement to terminal dues and leave

Holding

The Claimant was entitled to two weeks' salary in lieu of notice and salary for days worked in March 2013, but not pro rata leave.

Reasoning

It was common ground that the Claimant was entitled to two weeks' salary in lieu of notice. Leave, however, is only earned after one year of service, and the Claimant worked only about five months, so the claim for pro rata leave failed.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Protections against unfair and unlawful dismissal under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act are available in full to employees on probation, entitling an employee denied procedural fairness to compensation.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant for one month salary as compensation
  2. 2.Two weeks salary in lieu of notice
  3. 3.Salary for days worked in March 2013
  4. 4.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 45(1) & (2)
  • Employment ActSection 45(4)(b)
  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 42(1)
  • Employment ActSection 43

Cases cited (5)

  • Samuel G. Momanyi v The Hon. Attorney General & Another
    [2012] eKLR
  • Abraham Gumba v Kenya Medical Supplies Authority
    [2014] eKLR
  • Linus Barasa Odhiambo v Wells Fargo Limited
  • Danish Jalang'o & Another v Amicabre Travel Services Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Mercy Njoki Karingithi v Emerald Hotels and Resorts Limited
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, Sections 41, 42(1), 43, 45 invoked)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Odhore v Longhorn Kenya Limited (Cause 752 of 2013) [2015] KEELRC 1659 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in the judgment (Memorandum of Claim filed 22nd May 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1659/eng@2015-04-16

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