Irene Chepngetich Metet v County Government of Kericho [2016] KEELRC 1108 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that an employer who can't prove the real reason for firing, and never involved the employee, must pay substantial compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was wrongful, unfair and unlawful
The termination was wrongful, unfair and unlawful because the respondent failed to prove the rationalisation decision or the alleged irregularity of employment, and did not involve the claimant in the process.
The respondent justified the termination on a staff rationalisation exercise and on the alleged irregular employment of the claimant. Apart from the letter of termination produced by the claimant, the respondent adduced no evidence of the meetings adopting the rationalisation policy nor demonstrated the irregularity alleged. The claimant was also not involved in the termination process. Both the substance and the procedure of the termination therefore failed, answering the first issue in the claimant's favour.
Entitlement to relief
On a finding of unlawful termination the claimant became entitled to the relief sought, granted as a declaration, eight months' salary compensation, general damages, one month's notice pay and aggravated damages.
Having found the termination unlawful, the court held the claimant entitled to the relief sought. It applied Section 49-type compensation of eight months' salary, general damages of Kshs. 30,000, one month's salary in lieu of notice, aggravated damages of Kshs. 40,000 and a certificate of service, and issued parallel orders for the fourteen consolidated claimants.
Burden of proof under Section 47(5) of the Employment Act
The respondent's invocation of Section 47(5) to place the entire burden on the claimant did not displace the employer's duty under Sections 43 and 45 to justify the grounds for termination.
The claimant relied on Section 47(5) which places the burden of proving unfair termination on the employee while the burden of justifying the grounds rests on the employer. The respondent argued a literal interpretation placing the onus on the claimant. The court found the respondent had failed to justify the grounds for termination under Sections 43 and 45, since no evidence of the rationalisation decision or the alleged irregularity was produced.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employer justifies termination on a rationalisation exercise and irregularity of employment but adduces no evidence of the decisions taken or the irregularity alleged, the termination fails substantively and procedurally.
- An employee must be involved in the process of termination; failure to do so renders the termination substantively and procedurally untenable.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the claimant's employment was illegal, unlawful and irregular
- 2.Eight months' salary as compensation for unlawful termination (Kshs. 19,005 x 8 = Kshs. 152,040.00 for the lead claimant)
- 3.General damages of Kshs. 30,000.00
- 4.One month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 19,005.00 for the lead claimant)
- 5.Aggravated damages of Kshs. 40,000.00
- 6.The respondent to issue the claimant with a certificate of service
- 7.Costs of the claim borne by the respondent
- 8.Costs of the claims in the consolidated series met in respect of the lead claim only
- 9.Parallel relief awarded to the other claimants in the consolidated series (Philemon Kirui, Caroline Chepkoech, Samuel Arap Siele, Hillary Koech, Betty Kirui, Mutai Simon Kiprotich, Gilbert Kibet Kirui, John Bett, Philemon Bett, Joseph Maritim, Jackline Cherotich, Silvester Kipyegon, Stephen Kimetto and Caroline Chepkorir) on the same pattern
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes (Employment Act, 2007)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Irene Chepngetich Metet v County Government of Kericho [2016] KEELRC 1108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 160 of 2015 (lead case in the series of Causes 160 to 174 of 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1108/eng@2016-06-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.