Willis Owotsi v Attorney General [2018] KEELRC 457 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a civil servant's dismissal unfair because he was never told the details of the accusations or given a proper hearing, awarding him 12 months' salary.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was wrongful, unfair and unlawful
The termination was wrongful, unfair and unlawful because the disciplinary process denied the claimant a fair hearing.
The letters of interdiction and suspension did not contain the particulars of the allegations nor the supporting vouchers, and the claimant's requests for particulars went unanswered. He was never given an open, face-to-face opportunity to answer his accusers, offending the natural justice principles of nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem. The court noted the Employment Act, 2007 was not in force at the time of the cause of action, but held that fair hearing requirements were embedded in the then-applicable legislation and Code of Regulations.
Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought
Partially: a declaration of unlawfulness, twelve months' gross salary as contractual damages, partial reinstatement for terminal benefits and pension, interest, and costs were awarded; salary for the non-working period, severance pay, three months' notice pay and university fees were refused.
Having won on unlawful termination, the claimant became entitled to some relief. Salary for work not done was refused; severance pay was inapplicable as there was no redundancy; only one month's notice pay is conventional absent proof of a contrary contract; university fees were a benevolent act, not an enforceable benefit; and full reinstatement was overtaken by effluxion of time, warranting only partial reinstatement for terminal benefits and pension purposes.
Who bears the costs of the claim
The respondent (defendant) bears the costs.
Costs follow the event, and the claimant substantially succeeded on the unlawful termination claim.
Legal principles established
#- Fairness, fair procedure and fair administrative action in employment disciplinary processes predate the Employment Act, 2007 and are grounded in the rules of natural justice.
- An employee facing disciplinary charges must be furnished with the particulars of the allegations and the supporting documents to be able to answer them.
- Dismissal without an open, face-to-face opportunity to answer accusers offends the twin rules of natural justice, nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the interdiction, suspension and dismissal of the claimant/plaintiff from employment was wrongful, unfair and unlawful.
- 2.The claimant/plaintiff be and is hereby awarded contractual damages for wrongful, unfair and unlawful termination of employment being the equivalent of twelve (12) months of his gross salary at the time of his termination of employment.
- 3.The claimant/plaintiff be reinstated to employment solely for purposes of sustaining, accessing acquiring payment and receipt of his terminal benefits and pension in terms of his contract of employment.
- 4.Interest at court rates from the date of judgement till payment in full.
- 5.The Commissioner of Labour with the involvement of the parties be and is hereby ordered to compute the package in (ii) above and report to this court in 120 days from this judgment of court.
- 6.The Director of pensions be and is hereby ordered to compute the package in (iii) above as of course.
- 7.Mention on 20th March, 2019 for a report on computation by the Commissioner of Labour.
- 8.The costs of this claim shall be borne by the respondent.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution over employment disputes (not expressly quoted in judgment)
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.
- Monda v Aga Khan University (Cause E152 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 632 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 632 (KLR)4 Mar 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Willis Owotsi v Attorney General [2018] KEELRC 457 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 261 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/457/eng@2018-12-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.