Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No. 273 of 2014· [2016] KEELRC 748 (KLR)

Kenya Hotels & Allied Workers Union v Merryland Hotels Limited [2016] KEELRC 748 (KLR)

Employment & Labour Relations Court
21 July 2016
1,762 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

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

#
The Kenya Hotels and Allied Workers Union sued Merryland Hotels Limited on behalf of Grievant Geoffrey Otieng'no Akumo, a room steward summarily dismissed on 24th September 2014 after attending court as a union witness in a recognition dispute (Cause No. 197 of 2013) and responding to an absenteeism show-cause letter. The Claimant alleged the dismissal was unlawful, capricious and an act of intimidation for union support; the Respondent maintained it had valid reasons and followed a fair disciplinary procedure. The court framed the dispute around procedural fairness (section 41, Employment Act) and validity of reasons (section 43). It found the Respondent failed to prove that a disciplinary hearing took place, producing neither the invitation letter nor minutes, the burden resting on the employer. None of the three dismissal grounds - refusal to obey lawful instruction, insolence and negligence - were proved, making the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair. On remedies, the Respondent produced no records to prove leave taken or alternative days off for public holidays despite the record-keeping obligations in sections 10 and 74, and did not contest the tabulation of claims. The court declared the dismissal unfair, awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice, salary for days worked, four years' annual leave, three years' public holidays, underpayments, and maximum compensation of Shs.134,977.20 given ten years of service - a total of Shs.341,773.50 - plus costs of Shs.50,000 all inclusive.

Key legal issues

#
01

Procedural fairness in summary dismissal

Holding

The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the Respondent failed to prove that the Grievant was invited to or subjected to a disciplinary hearing

Reasoning

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.

p. 3
02

Validity of reasons for dismissal

Holding

None of the grounds in the dismissal letter were proved; the dismissal was substantively unfair

Reasoning

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.

p. 3
03

Employer's record-keeping obligations and unproved leave/holiday claims

Holding

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

Reasoning

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.

p. 4
04

Quantum of compensation for unfair dismissal

Holding

Maximum compensation was awarded considering 10 years of service and the circumstances of the dismissal

Reasoning

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.

p. 4

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. 1.Declaration that the summary dismissal of the Grievant was unfair
  2. 2.Award of one month's salary in lieu of notice of Shs.11,248.10
  3. 3.Award of salary for days worked up to 24/9/2014 of Shs.8,998.50
  4. 4.Award of annual leave for 4 years of Shs.27,386.70
  5. 5.Award of public holidays for 3 years of Shs.10,759.00
  6. 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. 7.Award of compensation of Shs.134,977.20, total Shs.341,773.50
  8. 8.Costs of Shs.50,000 all inclusive

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 43
  • Employment ActSections 10, 10(6) and 10(7)
  • Employment ActSection 74
  • Employment ActSection 49(1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Patrick Abuya v Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya (ICPAK) & Another
    [2015]eKLR
  • GMV v Bank of Africa Kenya Limited
    [2013]eKLR
  • Mary Chemweno Kiptui v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited
    [2014]eKLR
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.

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.