Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 229 of 2015· [2016] KEELRC 1105 (KLR)

John Kebaso Omayo & 3 others v Nyamira Tea Farmers Sacco Ltd [2016] KEELRC 1105 (KLR)

Industrial Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
3 June 2016
DMD.K. Njagi Marete
3,238 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court upheld a Sacco's dismissal of four employees, finding their fraud allegations against the employer unfounded and the terminations lawful.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Four employees of a Sacco - John Kebaso Omayo, Victoria Nyaboke Oigo, Charles Ongwenyi Momanyi and Jaspher Ageta Nyachiro - brought a claim before the Industrial Court alleging wrongful and unfair termination of their employment between April and September 2014. They alleged that the terminations were actuated by their election as shop stewards in September 2013 and their union recruitment activities, contrary to sections 41, 43, 45 and 46 of the Employment Act, 2007, Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act. They sought declarations, reinstatement, lost salaries, leave dues, twelve months' compensation, service pay, exemplary damages of Kshs. 10 million each, interest and costs. The respondent denied the claim, asserting the claimants were dismissed for fraud and financial impropriety causing substantial losses after fair hearings, warnings and suspension letters. The court framed three issues: whether the terminations were wrongful, unfair and unlawful; entitlement to relief; and costs. Holding that the respondent had adduced overwhelming evidence of fraud causing massive loss of funds, goodwill and reputation, and that investigation and prosecution had properly been left to the police, the court found the terminations lawful and justified. The claimants were held disentitled to all relief sought. The claim was dismissed with an order that each party bear its own costs. Judgment was delivered by D.K. Njagi Marete, J, on 3rd June 2016.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination of the grievants was wrongful, unfair and unlawful

Holding

The termination was lawful and justified; the respondent proved the allegations of fraud and financial impropriety.

Reasoning

The court weighed the claimants' case of victimisation for union activities against the respondent's case of fraud. It found the respondent had adduced overwhelming evidence of fraudulent conduct causing massive loss of funds, goodwill and reputation, and had properly left investigation and possible prosecution to the police. The suspensions and warnings in writing, and the disciplinary proceedings confined to the alleged fraud, satisfied the respondent's justification.

p. 6
02

Whether the claimants were entitled to the relief sought

Holding

No; entitlement to relief falls away upon a finding of lawful termination.

Reasoning

Having found the terminations lawful, the court held the claimants were disentitled to declarations, reinstatement, lost salaries, leave dues, twelve months' compensation, service pay, exemplary damages, interest and costs. All heads of relief collapsed with the finding on the first issue.

p. 6
03

Who bears the costs of the claim

Holding

Each party to bear its own costs.

Reasoning

Although the claim was dismissed and the respondent prevailed, the court did not award costs to the respondent, instead ordering that each party bear its own costs of the claim.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer who adduces evidence of employee fraud and financial loss, and refers the matter to the police, acts lawfully in terminating employment.
  • A finding of lawful termination disentitles the employee to all remedies claimed for unfair termination.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the claimants' claim in its entirety
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs of the claim

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Section 41
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 41(2)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 43
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 45
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 45(2)(b)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 45(4)(b)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 46(e)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 46(h)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 47(1)
  • Fair Administrative Action ActSection 4
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007; Labour Relations Act framework invoked by the parties)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John Kebaso Omayo & 3 others v Nyamira Tea Farmers Sacco Ltd [2016] KEELRC 1105 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No 229 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1105/eng@2016-06-03

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