Duncan Ndegwa Muriuki v Lasit Limited [2018] KEELRC 137 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a summary dismissal because the employee ignored a show cause notice, but ordered the employer to pay accrued leave dues.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Duty of employer to produce work records
The respondent did not attach the letter of summary dismissal nor produce work records; under section 10(7) of the Employment Act this is mandatory, so the claimant's account under section 47(5) had to be taken as true as to the facts leading to dismissal.
Section 10(7) of the Employment Act, 2007 obliges the employer to submit all work records when a suit is filed. The respondent did not attach the summary dismissal letter, so the reasons for dismissal rested only on oral evidence. The court therefore accepted the claimant's narrative of the facts leading to dismissal under section 47(5), while still assessing whether the dismissal was substantively justified on the conduct established.
Response to show cause notice and procedural fairness
A show cause notice is not an inference of guilt; the employee must respond as required. By refusing to respond and instead insisting on speaking to the managing director, the claimant squandered the chance to safeguard his employment, and the summary dismissal was justified.
Relying on Jackson Butiya v Eastern Produce, the court held that an employee who squanders internal grievance mechanisms cannot later complain that he was not heard. The court found the claimant failed to respond to the show cause notice, declined a meeting with the general manager, and absconded from 14th June 2017, justifying summary dismissal for insubordination and absenteeism.
Accrued leave days
The respondent admitted owing 21 leave days computed at Ksh.6,783.00, which the claimant declined to collect; the court accepted the respondent's record and ordered the leave dues paid.
The claimant was not clear and specific as to when he took leave or was recalled to work. The respondent admitted 21 leave days at Ksh.6,783.00. The court preferred the respondent's account and ordered that the leave dues be processed and paid, together with a Certificate of Service.
House allowance claim
Under section 31 of the Employment Act, 2007 the respondent had obliged by providing housing until 2011 when the claimant opted out on his own volition; he could not then claim house allowance.
The claimant was housed by the respondent from 2005 to 2011, after which he sought alternative accommodation following the post-election violence without the respondent's approval. Section 31 required the employer to provide housing or allowance, which it had done; the claimant's unilateral decision to opt out could not ground a claim for house allowance for the period after 2011.
Legal principles established
#- An employer who fails to submit employment work records as required under section 10(7) of the Employment Act, 2007 leaves the claimant's account of the facts leading to dismissal under section 47(5) to be taken as the truth.
- An employee issued with a show cause notice must respond to it, even where the employee considers himself wrongly accused; failure to respond leaves the employer free to take action and infer insubordination.
- An employee who declines to respond to a show cause notice and instead demands to speak to a senior officer squanders the opportunity to safeguard his employment and cannot complain of the resulting summary dismissal.
- An employee who opts out of employer-provided accommodation on his own volition cannot later claim house allowance.
Court orders
#- 1.The claimant's claims are dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.The respondent shall process and pay the due leave days' pay of Ksh.6,783.00 to the claimant
- 3.The respondent shall issue the claimant with a Certificate of Service
- 4.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Elijah v Kenya Airways Plc (Cause 151 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 2347 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2347 (KLR)30 Jul 2025
- Cheboror v Libya Oil Kenya Limited (Cause 81 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 1391 (KLR)[2022] KEELRC 1391 (KLR)5 Jul 2022
- Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court of Kenya & another v Khaemba (Civil Appeal 522 of 2019) [2021] KECA 322 (KLR)[2021] KECA 322 (KLR)17 Dec 2021
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Duncan Ndegwa Muriuki v Lasit Limited [2018] KEELRC 137 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 384 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/137/eng@2018-11-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.