Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedCause No 812 of 2013· [2018] KEELRC 339 (KLR)

Christopher Mwangi Maina & 2 others v Rift Valley Railways (Kenya) Limited [2018] KEELRC 339 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
30 November 2018
ANAbuodha Jorum Nelson
1,028 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 that when an employer fails to prove why it fired workers, the dismissal is automatically unfair and must be compensated.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Three claimants - a shunter driver, a loco driver and a contract locomotive driver performing train guard duties - were employed by Rift Valley Railways (Kenya) Limited. On 16th December 2011 they were assigned a light locomotive to travel from Nairobi to Stony Athi Station to attach coaches for passenger service. They were received on a blocked line where a rake commuter train stood, and they smashed the last vehicle, BVB 8539. The claimants attributed the accident to the respondent's officers' failure to follow the Kenya Railways General Rules, particularly the failure to issue a warning order about the blockage, the signals having indicated a clear line. They reported the accident, proceeded to pick up the passengers and returned to Nairobi, where they were issued 'NOT TO BE BOoded' notices equivalent to suspension. After responding to charges, they were interdicted on half pay in May 2012 and subsequently dismissed by letters dated 1st August 2012; their appeals were rejected. The respondent contended the claimants were warned of the blocked line, passed signals at danger and were lawfully dismissed after being given an opportunity to defend themselves. The respondent did not appear at the hearing and the matter proceeded ex-parte. The court held that the employer bears the onus of proving the reasons for termination and, failing which, the termination is deemed unfair. The respondent failed to discharge that burden. Judgment was entered for seven months' salary as compensation for each claimant, totalling Kshs 1,006,355, subject to taxes and statutory deductions, with costs to the claimants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the employer proved the reasons for the termination

Holding

The respondent failed to appear to prove the reasons for termination, so the termination was deemed unfair and compensation of seven months' salary was awarded.

Reasoning

The court restated that in a claim arising from termination of an employment contract, the employer bears the burden of proving the reason for termination; in default, the termination is deemed unfair. The respondent, though served, did not appear at the hearing to discharge this burden. The claimants appeared and demonstrated that their termination was unfair by justifying their conduct regarding the accident and shifting blame to the respondent for failing to warn them of the blocked line. Ex-parte proof was therefore sufficient to establish unfair termination.

p. 2
02

Whether the claimants' conduct amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal

Holding

The claimants justified their actions and shifted blame to the respondent, whose officers allegedly failed to give the required warning order about the blockage on the track.

Reasoning

The claimants contended the accident occurred because the respondent's officers failed to follow the Kenya Railways General Rules by not issuing a warning order about the blockage and receiving them on a blocked line despite signals indicating a clear line. The respondent alleged the claimants ignored advice and passed signals at danger, but it did not appear to prove these allegations. The claimants' defence, having been responded to a show cause letter extensively, was accepted as displacing gross misconduct.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The burden of proving the reason or reasons for termination of employment lies on the employer, and failure to discharge it renders the termination unfair.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered against the respondent for seven months' salary as compensation for unfair termination of the claimants
  2. 2.Compensation awarded: Kshs 294,000 to Christopher Maina, Kshs 397,355 to Peter Wainaina, Kshs 315,000 to Duncan Malugu (total Kshs 1,006,355)
  3. 3.The award to be subject to taxes and statutory deductions
  4. 4.Costs awarded to the claimants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actprovisions on fair and lawful dismissal
  • Kenya Railways General Rules
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution (implied by the Employment and Labour Relations Court's jurisdiction over employment and labour relations); Employment Act provisions on unfair termination as pleaded

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Christopher Mwangi Maina & 2 others v Rift Valley Railways (Kenya) Limited [2018] KEELRC 339 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No 812 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/339/eng@2018-11-30

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