Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No. 129 of 2015· [2016] KEELRC 1691 (KLR)

Edwin Oduor Ochieng v Riley Falcon Security Services Limited [2016] KEELRC 1691 (KLR)

Employment & Labour Relations Court of Kenya
17 February 2016
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
1,099 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled a security guard's dismissal unfair because the employer couldn't prove it followed a fair disciplinary process.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent as a security guard from about 1st April 2011 at a gross consolidated salary, alleged that on 11th August 2014 his services were wrongfully, unlawfully and summarily terminated after he applied for a transfer and to work day shifts to care for his young children following his wife's death, with drunkenness feigned as an excuse. He sought terminal dues totalling Kshs. 550,305.80 (notice pay, leave dues, overtime, underpayment, service pay and 12 months' compensation), a declaration of unfair termination, a certificate of service, costs and interest. The respondent denied the claim, asserting the termination was lawful and a consequence of gross misconduct, with a hearing accorded. The parties disposed of the matter by written submissions. The court framed three issues: wrongfulness of termination, entitlement to relief, and costs. It found the respondent had failed to demonstrate the validity of the termination; documents annexed to submissions (summons to disciplinary meeting, charge sheet, minutes, dismissal letter) were late, unreliable and untested. On a balance of probabilities the court found the termination wrongful, unfair and unlawful. It awarded one month's pay in lieu of notice (Kshs. 9,039.00), six months' compensation (Kshs. 54,234.00), a certificate of service and costs to the claimant, declining to award the full tabulated dues or 12 months' compensation. Judgment was delivered on 17th February 2016 by D. K. Njagi Marete, J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was wrongful, unfair and unlawful

Holding

The court found the termination wrongful, unfair and unlawful on a balance of probabilities.

Reasoning

The respondent failed to demonstrate the validity of the termination. Documents purporting to show a disciplinary process were annexed only to submissions, not produced earlier with the defence, making them unreliable, shadowy and afterthoughts whose authenticity could not be vouched; the claimant was not afforded an opportunity to respond to them. Weighing the evidence, the matter tilted towards the claimant.

p. 3
02

Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought

Holding

Having succeeded on the first issue, the claimant was entitled to relief, which the court granted in measured form.

Reasoning

The court allowed the claim but did not award the full tabulated dues of Kshs. 550,305.80. It awarded one month's pay in lieu of notice (Kshs. 9,039.00), six months' compensation for unlawful termination (Kshs. 54,234.00), a certificate of service, and costs against the respondent, rather than the 12 months' compensation and full terminal dues sought.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer asserting a fair termination must demonstrate the validity of the termination; a bare denial without evidence suffices not, and documents introduced late in submissions are unreliable.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the termination of the employment of the claimant was wrongful, unfair and unlawful
  2. 2.One month's pay in lieu of notice of Kshs. 9,039.00
  3. 3.Six (6) months compensation for unlawful termination of employment of Kshs. 54,234.00 (total award Kshs. 63,273.00)
  4. 4.Respondent ordered to issue a certificate of service to the claimant
  5. 5.Costs of the cause to be borne by the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSections 35, 36, 41(1), 44(4), 45(2), 4(b), 27(1-2), 49(1)(c), 51
  • Labour Institutions Act, 2007Section 15
  • Legal Notice No. 64 of 1st May, 2011
  • Legal Notice No. 71 of 1st May, 2012
  • Legal Notice No. 197 of 1st May, 2013
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act; Labour Institutions Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Edwin Oduor Ochieng v Riley Falcon Security Services Limited [2016] KEELRC 1691 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 129 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1691/eng@2016-02-17

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