Wyllis Collins Akeyo Muganda v Geothermal Development Company [2016] KEELRC 329 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employee was unfairly dismissed after his employer skipped its own disciplinary process and blamed him for fraud police later pinned on someone else.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the summary dismissal
The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the Respondent breached its own disciplinary procedure by not convening a Disciplinary Committee and not hearing the Claimant in the presence of a colleague as its HR Manual required, and because the 72-hour written explanation did not satisfy section 41(1) and (2) of the Employment Act.
The HR Policies and Procedures Manual (section 16.8.5) required the Manager, Human Resource to convene a Main Disciplinary Committee for staff in Grades GD5 to GD13. Nothing in the Respondent's testimony, reply or documents showed the Claimant went through that process in the presence of a colleague. Breach of internal procedures is itself breach of contract (Post Office v Strange endorsed). Independently, the request for written explanations was merely investigative and fell short of the statutory hearing under section 41(2).
Substantive fairness of the summary dismissal
The Respondent had no valid and fair reasons for the dismissal because police investigations exonerated the Claimant, and the actual forger was later convicted and sentenced.
Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act oblige an employer to prove the reasons for termination and that they are valid and fair. The Respondent's witness conceded he became aware after dismissal that the police had exonerated the Claimant and a bank employee had been arrested and charged. The subsequent conviction and sentencing of that suspect led the Court to conclude the dismissal lacked valid and fair reasons.
Remedies for unfair dismissal
Compensation of 10 months' gross wages (Kshs 670,000/-) was awarded under section 49(4) of the Employment Act; all other heads of claim failed for lack of proof or pleading.
Compensation is discretionary and guided by section 49(4). Since the Claimant did not contribute to the dismissal by misconduct and reasonably expected continued employment, 10 months' gross wages at Kshs 67,000/- per month was appropriate. Claims for grade remuneration, suspension wages, post-dismissal wages, loan deductions, notice pay, gratuity and interest were refused for want of proof, pleadings or legal foundation.
Legal principles established
#- Failure by an employer to observe its own internal disciplinary procedures in taking action against an employee amounts to breach of contract
- An employer must, before summary dismissal for misconduct, hear and consider the employee's representations as required by section 41(2) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation equivalent to 10 months gross wages of Kshs 670,000/-
- 2.Claimant to have costs of the Cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (Article 41 of the Constitution referenced on employee rights)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Peter Murigi Mburu v Kenya Forest Services [2019] KEELRC 264 (KLR)[2019] KEELRC 264 (KLR)27 Nov 2019
- Peter Murigi Mburu v Kenya Forest Services [2019] KEELRC 264 (KLR)[2019] KEELRC 264 (KLR)27 Nov 2019
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wyllis Collins Akeyo Muganda v Geothermal Development Company [2016] KEELRC 329 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No 105 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/329/eng@2016-11-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.