David Nganga Mwangi & 3 others v Vtechnologies Kenya Limited [2016] KEELRC 265 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that dismissing workers by SMS without a hearing was unfair, awarding four employees over Kshs.3.5 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was for a valid reason and by fair procedure
The dismissal was substantively and procedurally flawed; insubordination for failing to respond to a letter was not a valid reason under section 44 of the Employment Act, and no disciplinary hearing was afforded under section 41
The employees had sought a meeting to discuss unfulfilled promises of review of terms; their conduct was reasonable. The employer dismissed them summarily by SMS without notice to show cause or a disciplinary hearing, and other employees who similarly failed to respond were not dismissed, evidencing victimisation of the claimants for raising a collective grievance.
Right to organise and raise grievances at the workplace
The claimants were victimised for exercising their right to organise and raise a collective grievance, contrary to fair labour practice protected by the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and Article 41 of the Constitution
The court found the employees' conduct in seeking a meeting with the managing director reasonable, and that the respondent's 'divide and rule' tactic and selective dismissal of the claimants violated fair labour practices protected by statute and the Constitution.
Reliefs for each claimant
Each claimant awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice, untaken leave pay, and compensatory damages of 5 to 10 months' salary depending on length of service; gratuity and severance pay refused
Compensation was scaled to length of unblemished service and the absence of contributory fault. Notice pay and accrued untaken leave were awarded as contractual/statutory entitlements; NSSF contributions precluded gratuity and the absence of retrenchment precluded severance pay.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must comply with the procedural fairness requirements of section 41 of the Employment Act even where summary dismissal is contemplated
- Workers have an inherent and constitutional right to organise and air grievances, and victimisation for exercising work rights is viewed dimly by the court
Court orders
#- 1.Respondent to pay 1st claimant David Nganga Mwangi Kshs.565,947.00
- 2.Respondent to pay 2nd claimant Joseph Muhanga Karanja Kshs.842,841.00
- 3.Respondent to pay 3rd claimant John Kinya Ngaruiya Kshs.1,136,083.00
- 4.Respondent to pay 4th claimant Lawrence Maina Kahiga Kshs.966,775.40
- 5.Award to be paid with interest at court rates from date of filing suit till payment in full
- 6.Costs to follow the outcome
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 and Article 41 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "David Nganga Mwangi & 3 others v Vtechnologies Kenya Limited [2016] KEELRC 265 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No 1476 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/265/eng@2016-11-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.