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. 672 of 2015· [2018] KEELRC 189 (KLR)

Maurice Mumo Kiilu v Mufaddal Glass Distributors Limited [2018] KEELRC 189 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
17 December 2018
HWHellen S. Wasilwa
1,139 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenyan employer failed to prove an employee's dismissal was justified and was ordered to pay damages, costs, and interest.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant sued his former employer seeking damages for unfair termination and terminal benefits, alleging he was employed from April 2011 to 14 November 2014 as a glass cutter earning Kshs. 16,500 per month and that his services were terminated without notice or reason. The respondent admitted the employment relationship but contended the claimant resigned on 21 November 2014 for medical reasons. The court framed three issues: whether the claimant resigned or was terminated; whether any termination was for valid reasons and with due process; and whether remedies were due. On the evidence, the claimant testified that the resignation letter was written after he had been sacked so as to receive his dues. Critically, the respondent's own witness admitted that the claimant had been dismissed on 14 November 2014 for absenteeism before the resignation letter was written. The court found the claimant was dismissed. The respondent failed to produce attendance registers to prove the alleged absenteeism, which remained a mere allegation, and no dismissal letter, notice or disciplinary process was availed. Applying sections 41, 43 and 45(2) of the Employment Act, 2007, the court held the dismissal unfair and unjustified. It awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice and eight months' salary as compensation, totaling Kshs. 148,500/=, with costs and interest. The claim for service pay and leave pay was not reflected in the final award.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant resigned or was dismissed

Holding

The claimant was dismissed before the resignation letter was written; the resignation was a device to secure payment of dues.

Reasoning

The claimant testified the resignation letter was written after the sacking so the respondent would pay his dues. The respondent's own witness (RW1) admitted the claimant had been dismissed on 14.11.2014 for absenteeism prior to the resignation letter dated 21.11.2014. RW1's evidence therefore corroborated the claimant's account, and the court found a dismissal occurred.

p. 2
02

Whether the dismissal was for valid reasons and with due process

Holding

The dismissal was unfair and unjustified under sections 43, 41 and 45(2) of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

The respondent alleged absenteeism but failed to produce the attendance register to prove it, leaving the assertion a mere allegation. No dismissal letter was served, no disciplinary process was undertaken and no notice given. The employer thus failed its statutory burden under section 43 and the procedural requirements of section 41.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The burden lies on the employer to prove the reasons for termination, failing which the termination is deemed unfair under section 45 of the Employment Act.
  • An employer must, before terminating an employee for misconduct, poor performance or physical incapacity, explain the reasons and hear the employee's representations.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.One month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 16,500/=.
  2. 2.Eight months' salary as compensation for unfair termination, Kshs. 132,000/=.
  3. 3.Total award of Kshs. 148,500/= to the Claimant.
  4. 4.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of judgment.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 43
  • Employment ActSection 45
  • Employment ActSection 47

Cases cited (2)

  • Benson M. Nyamai vs Teachers Service Commission
    (2015) eKLR
  • David K. Cheruiyot vs Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited
    (2015) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment relationship claims (Employment Act, 2007)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maurice Mumo Kiilu v Mufaddal Glass Distributors Limited [2018] KEELRC 189 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 672 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/189/eng@2018-12-17

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