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· [2016] KEELRC 267 (KLR)

Jonesmas Thoya Mukamba v Crest Security Services Limited [2016] KEELRC 267 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 November 2016
1,964 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded a dismissed night guard Kshs. 290,151 because his employer couldn't prove misconduct or follow fair dismissal procedures.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first-instance employment claim before the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa. The claimant, a night guard employed on renewable one-year fixed term contracts from 9.4.2008, sued for wrongful and unfair premature termination of his last contract on 7.8.2015 for gross misconduct, claiming notice pay, salary for the unexpired contract term, compensation, six years' leave, house allowance, gratuity and salary underpayment totalling Kshs. 670,825. The respondent admitted the termination but maintained it was fair and lawful. The court framed two issues: whether the premature termination was unfair, and whether the reliefs should be granted. It found the respondent had not proved the alleged misconduct on a balance of probability because neither the operations manager nor the day guard testified, rendering the General Manager's account hearsay, and accepted the claimant's uncontroverted evidence that he was searched before leaving. It further found the disciplinary hearing violated section 41 of the Employment Act as the claimant was not heard in the presence of a companion of his choice. The termination was declared unfair and unjust. Awards: one month's notice pay (Kshs. 12,221), eight months' compensation (Kshs. 97,768), gratuity of Kshs. 36,663, and underpayment of Kshs. 143,499, the latter not statute barred under section 90 as a continuing breach. Claims for leave and house allowance were dismissed. Judgment of Kshs. 290,151 plus costs, interest and a certificate of service was entered for the claimant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Valid and fair reason for termination

Holding

The respondent failed to prove the misconduct alleged; the RW1's evidence was hearsay

Reasoning

The claimant denied refusing to be searched and denied the operations manager's presence at the gate. Neither the operations manager nor the day guard testified to support the allegations. The respondent's General Manager never witnessed the incident, so his account was hearsay, leaving the claimant's uncontroverted evidence accepted on a balance of probability.

p. 3
02

Fair procedure under section 41 of the Employment Act

Holding

The alleged disciplinary hearing did not comply with section 41 because the claimant was not heard in the presence of a companion of his choice

Reasoning

Section 41 mandatorily requires the employer to explain the reason for intended dismissal in a language the employee understands and in the presence of a shop floor union representative or fellow employee of the employee's choice. The hearing before managers did not satisfy this requirement, so the termination was procedurally unfair.

p. 3
03

Limitation on claim for underpayment of salary

Holding

Claim not statute barred; underpayment was a continuing breach that ceased on dismissal

Reasoning

Under section 90 of the Employment Act, a claim arising from a continuing injury must be filed within 12 months of cessation of the breach. Underpayment continued until dismissal on 7.8.2015 and suit was filed on 25.9.2015, well within 12 months. The court allowed the underpayment claim as calculated in the memorandum of claim.

p. 4
04

Compensation quantum for unfair termination

Holding

Eight months' salary awarded, considering the remaining nine months of the fixed term contract and the claimant's blindness

Reasoning

The court exercised its discretion under sections 35(1)(c) and 49(1)(a) of the Employment Act, awarding one month's notice pay at the minimum wage of Kshs. 12,221 and eight months' salary as compensation, considering the reasonable expectation to serve the remaining nine months and the claimant's reduced employability due to blindness.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Termination of employment is unfair if the employer fails to prove a valid and fair reason and a fair procedure
  • An employer cannot dismiss an employee for misconduct without first explaining the reason in a language understood and in the presence of a companion of the employee's choice (section 41)
  • An employment claim is not time barred where filed within 12 months after the cessation of a continuing injury (section 90)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair and unjust
  2. 2.One month salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 12,221
  3. 3.Compensation for unfair termination of Kshs. 97,768 (eight months' salary)
  4. 4.Gratuity of Kshs. 36,663 under Regulation 17 of the Regulation of Wages (Protective Security Services) Order
  5. 5.Salary underpayment of Kshs. 143,499
  6. 6.Total award of Kshs. 290,151 plus costs and interest
  7. 7.Certificate of Service to be issued to the claimant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 45(2)
  • Employment Actsection 41
  • Employment Actsection 35(1)(c)
  • Employment Actsection 49(1)(a)
  • Employment Actsection 90
  • Regulation of Wages (Protective Security Services) OrderRegulation 17
  • Labour Institutions ActWage Orders published thereunder
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act claims)

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.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jonesmas Thoya Mukamba v Crest Security Services Limited [2016] KEELRC 267 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/267/eng@2016-11-25

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