Kimutai Langat v Kenya Credit Traders Limited [2016] KEELRC 186 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a summary dismissal where the worker ignored letters asking him to explain poor performance, but ordered the employer to pay his leave allowance and security deposit.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was procedurally fair
The dismissal was procedurally fair; substantial compliance with section 41 was achieved through letters demanding explanations plus a face-to-face meeting
The Claimant was twice put on written notice to explain his poor performance and his failure to respond, and ignored both letters. A face-to-face meeting with the Respondent's managers was then held. Section 41's hearing requirement can be satisfied orally or through correspondence or both. The Claimant never offered any explanation, even in Court, for his failure to respond. The Court held the Respondent was in substantial compliance with procedural fairness requirements.
Whether the summary dismissal was substantively fair
The dismissal was substantively fair; the Claimant's failure to respond fell under section 44(3) as knowingly failing or refusing to obey a lawful command
The principal reason for dismissal was the Claimant's failure to respond to requests for explanations regarding extremely poor performance. The Court characterized this conduct as knowingly failing or refusing to obey a lawful command to explain poor performance, amounting to gross misconduct under section 44(3) of the Employment Act justifying summary dismissal. The employer proved the reasons for termination as required by section 43.
Entitlement to leave allowance and monies held on security account
Leave allowance of Kshs 2,008 and security account monies of Kshs 25,134.50 were admitted and payable regardless of the manner of separation
Leave allowance entitlement is not pegged to the manner of separation, and the Respondent's witness admitted owing Kshs 2,008 in leave travelling allowance. The Respondent's witness also admitted that the security monies were payable after 6 months of separation. The Court ordered payment of both amounts despite finding the dismissal fair.
Legal principles established
#- The procedural hearing envisaged under section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007 may be conducted orally, through correspondence, or a combination of both, depending on the nature and scope of employment
- Leave allowance as an entitlement is not pegged to the manner of separation
- Where an employer has a disciplinary policy in place, it ought to comply with such policy
Court orders
#- 1.The Court found and held that the summary dismissal of the Claimant was fair
- 2.Respondent ordered to pay the Claimant leave allowance of Kshs 2,008/-
- 3.Respondent ordered to pay the Claimant Kshs 25,134.50 held on security account
- 4.Total award of Kshs 27,142.50
- 5.Save for the two heads of relief, the Cause was dismissed with no order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes under the Employment Act, 2007 (provisions of the Act invoked, including sections 35, 36, 41, 43, 44, 45 and 47(5))
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.
- Kenya Hospital Association Limited t/a the Nairobi Hospital v John Gichuru Ngunju[2024] KECA 1947 (KLR)20 Dec 2024
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimutai Langat v Kenya Credit Traders Limited [2016] KEELRC 186 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No 389 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/186/eng@2016-10-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.