Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi & 2 others v Kenya Revenue Authority [2016] KEELRC 1856 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court found KRA unfairly dismissed three cashiers over unproven fraud claims and ordered their re-engagement with full back pay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Respondent applied internal disciplinary procedures appropriately
- 2.Whether the Claimants committed acts of gross misconduct
- 3.Whether the termination was unfair
- 4.Whether there are any remedies due to the Claimants
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent applied internal disciplinary procedures appropriately
The Respondent did not. It failed to supply documents and investigation reports requested and needed for the defences, exceeded the suspension timelines in its own Code, used shifting disciplinary panel members without continuity, and recorded inaccurate minutes, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
The Court found records available to the Respondent since 2011 were never given to the Claimants before or at the disciplinary hearings, despite court orders. The disciplinary committee recommended termination before the special meeting was held and minutes were signed inaccurately. The failure to issue documents compromised the defences and breached the mandatory requirements of section 41 of the Employment Act and the Respondent's own Code.
Whether the Claimants committed acts of gross misconduct
No substantive evidence established fraud. The ICT officer confirmed deletions but not that they were fraudulent; deletions by the 1st Claimant were within his authority, and no financial audit report confirmed the alleged losses.
The Court found the audit trail data detailed but its linkage to fraud against the Claimants failed. The 1st Claimant had authority to delete receipts and was allegedly on leave at the material times; the 2nd and 3rd Claimants had no deletion authority and stated so in their responses. Senior officers' statements exculpating the Claimants were ignored, and no criminal charges had been preferred years after suspension.
Whether the termination was unfair
Yes. Both procedurally and substantively unfair, contrary to sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act and Articles 28 and 41 of the Constitution, amounting to unfair labour practice.
The mandatory procedural protections of section 41 were not secured, defences were impaired by withheld documents, suspensions ran for years beyond the Code's timelines, panels lacked continuity, and no cogent substantive evidence of fraud was produced. The summary dismissal, a sanction of last resort reserved for the clearest cases, was therefore wrongful.
Whether there are any remedies due to the Claimants
Yes. Re-engagement in comparable work without loss of rank or benefits, payment of all back salaries, increments, allowances and benefits within 30 days, crediting suspension-period benefits, and costs.
Section 49 of the Employment Act provides reinstatement, re-employment and compensation as remedies for unfair dismissal. Given that the Respondent's functions had moved to the NTSA and the ICT system had changed, the Court tailored reinstatement as re-engagement in comparable or suitable work at the same remuneration, with full back pay, since the Respondent has a national network of offices capable of deployment.
Legal principles established
#- Failure by an employer to issue an employee the documents and investigation reports relied upon before a disciplinary hearing impairs the defence and renders the dismissal procedurally unfair
- The provisions of section 41 of the Employment Act are mandatory; the employer must explain the employee's rights and ensure a companion of the employee's choice is present at the hearing
- Prolonged suspension beyond the timelines in an employer's internal code amounts to unfair labour practice contrary to section 45 of the Employment Act and Article 41 of the Constitution
- An employer applying a policy or procedure unknown to the employee takes advantage of the employee, amounting to unfair labour practice
- Keeping an employee on unpaid suspension for a prolonged period subjects them to indignity prohibited under Article 28 of the Constitution
- Reinstatement places the employee back into the job on the same terms and conditions as before dismissal, as the primary statutory remedy in unfair dismissal disputes
- Where the employer's functions or systems have changed, re-engagement in comparable or suitable work at the same remuneration is an appropriate remedy
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the Claimants were unfairly terminated from their employment with the Respondent
- 2.The Respondent shall re-engage the Claimants in appropriate positions without loss of rank and the terms that go with it or being put at a disadvantage
- 3.The Claimants shall be paid all back salaries, increments, allowances, benefits, due bonuses as paid to other employees, and any other legal dues within 30 days from the date of the judgment
- 4.The Claimants shall report at their last stations of work for re-engagement and deployment on 2nd June 2016 at 8.30 hours
- 5.The benefits paid for during the period of suspension of the Claimants shall be put into account
- 6.The Claimants are awarded costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (Employment and Labour Relations Court); claim brought under the Employment Act and Article 41 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Reinstatement to the exact former positions (granted instead as re-engagement in comparable/suitable work)
The functions the Claimants performed had moved to the National Transport and Safety Authority and the ICT system had changed, so re-engagement in comparable work was ordered rather than reinstatement to former positions
General damages for breach of fundamental rights to fair labour practices
Not specifically addressed in the disposition; the Court held reinstatement and back pay to be the effective remedy
Costs
The Claimants are awarded costs of the suit.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
(a) I declare the Claimants were unfairly terminated from their employment with the respondent;
(b) The Respondent shall re-engage the Claimants in appropriate positions without loss of rank and the terms that go with it or being put at a disadvantage.
(c) The Claimants shall be paid all back salaries, increments, allowances, benefits, due bonuses as paid to other employees, and any other legal dues within 30 days from the date of this judgement;
(d) The Claimants shall report at their last stations of work for re-engagement and deployment on 2nd June 2016 at 8.30 hours;
(f) The Claimants are awarded costs of the suit. Orders accordingly.
The provisions of section 41 of the Employment Act are mandatory. They are not at the option of the employer.
The sanction of summary dismissal should be issued only in the clearest of cases.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently records the 2nd Claimant's suspension date (18th vs 22nd March 2011) and the date of her employment letter (17th June 2004 vs 17th April 2004)
The judgment inconsistently records the date of termination as 23rd July 2014 in most places but refers to 3rd July 2014 in one passage
The 1st Claimant's defrauded amount is inconsistently stated as Kshs.3,483,675.00 and Kshs.3,483,697.00
Paragraph numbering is duplicated - two paragraphs are numbered 46
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Farhiya Ibrahim Issack v Wajir County Assembly Service Board [2016] KEELRC 542 (KLR)[2016] KEELRC 542 (KLR)29 Aug 2016applied
- Gladys Muthoni Mwangi & 20 Others v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited & Barclays Africa Group Limited (Petition 25 of 2016) (Civ) [2016] KEELRC 520 (KLR)[2016] KEELRC 520 (KLR)30 Jun 2016applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi & 2 others v Kenya Revenue Authority [2016] KEELRC 1856 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 1421 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1856/eng@2016-05-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.