Kenya Hotels & Allied Workers Union v Merryland Hotels Limited [2016] KEELRC 748 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a hotel worker over Shs.341,000 because his employer could not prove it held a disciplinary hearing before dismissing him.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness in summary dismissal
The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the Respondent failed to prove that the Grievant was invited to or subjected to a disciplinary hearing
Section 41 of the Employment Act requires a fair hearing before dismissal. The Claimant denied being called to a disciplinary hearing on 16th September 2014. The Respondent produced neither the letter inviting the Grievant to the meeting nor the minutes, which were the documents that would have proved such a hearing. Since the burden of proof under section 41 lies on the employer, the failure to produce these records meant procedural fairness was not established.
Validity of reasons for dismissal
None of the grounds in the dismissal letter were proved; the dismissal was substantively unfair
Section 43 requires valid reasons for termination. The Grievant denied all three grounds - refusing lawful instruction, insolence and negligence. The Respondent's witness gave a different account of the disciplinary meeting but the Respondent did not disprove the Claimant's denials. The Grievant had worked for 10 years without disciplinary issues apart from an incident with a new accountant. The court therefore found the grounds unproved and the dismissal substantively unfair.
Employer's record-keeping obligations and unproved leave/holiday claims
Absent records under sections 10 and 74, the employer bears the burden and the Grievant's leave, public holiday and underpayment claims succeeded as uncontested
The Respondent's witness testified that the Grievant took annual leave and got alternative days off for public holidays, but no records were produced. Sections 10(6) and (7) and section 74 place the obligation to keep and produce records on the employer, and failure to produce them places the burden of disproving alleged terms on the employer. The Respondent also did not contest the tabulation of claims filed on 25th September 2015, leaving those prayers uncontested.
Quantum of compensation for unfair dismissal
Maximum compensation was awarded considering 10 years of service and the circumstances of the dismissal
The Grievant was employed on 2nd March 2004 and dismissed on 24th September 2014, a period of about 10 years. His last salary was Shs.11,248.10 per the general order though he was paid Shs.6,000. Taking length of service and the circumstances of dismissal into account, the court considered him entitled to maximum compensation under section 49(1), awarding Shs.134,977.20 (12 months' gross pay) plus accrued dues.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proving that a disciplinary hearing took place under section 41 of the Employment Act rests on the employer
- Where an employer fails to produce employment records under sections 10 and 74 of the Employment Act, the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of employment is on the employer
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the summary dismissal of the Grievant was unfair
- 2.Award of one month's salary in lieu of notice of Shs.11,248.10
- 3.Award of salary for days worked up to 24/9/2014 of Shs.8,998.50
- 4.Award of annual leave for 4 years of Shs.27,386.70
- 5.Award of public holidays for 3 years of Shs.10,759.00
- 6.Award of underpayments of salary (2011-April 2012 Shs.33,624.00; May 2012-April 2013 Shs.48,432.00; May 2013-August 2014 Shs.66,348.00)
- 7.Award of compensation of Shs.134,977.20, total Shs.341,773.50
- 8.Costs of Shs.50,000 all inclusive
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (employment dispute; filed as Cause under the Court's cause procedure)
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.
- Jane Wangari Ngene v Philip Njuguna Waruth & another [2018] KEELC 279 (KLR)[2018] KEELC 279 (KLR)18 Dec 2018
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Hotels & Allied Workers Union v Merryland Hotels Limited [2016] KEELRC 748 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 273 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/748/eng@2016-07-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.