Tailors & Textiles Workers Union v Rupa Cotton Mills (Epz) Limited (Athi River) [2018] KEELRC 698 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled two workers' summary dismissal unfair because the employer never heard their side before firing them.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was procedurally fair under Section 41 of the Employment Act
The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the Grievants were never given an opportunity to be heard or to make representations before dismissal
Section 41(1) and (2) of the Employment Act obliges an employer to explain reasons for termination in a language the employee understands and to hear and consider representations before terminating or summarily dismissing an employee for misconduct. No effort was made to comply; the dismissal letters simply announced the summary dismissal. Natural justice was therefore breached, and the CBA's own suspension and investigation procedure was not followed.
Whether the dismissal was substantively justified given the alleged theft of towels
The dismissal was not justified; the alleged theft was not investigated, no suspension or investigation preceded the dismissal, and the alleged theft was not reported to the Police
The dismissal letters cited suspicion of a criminal offence against the employer's property under the CBA. The court found no investigation or suspension as contemplated by CBA rule 15, and the Grievants testified the alleged theft was never reported to the Police. With no iota of compliance with Section 41 or the CBA, the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair.
What remedies flow from the unfair and unlawful dismissal
The Grievants were awarded one month's notice pay, six months' compensation, annual leave plus leave allowance for 2012, gratuity for years served and certificates of service
Having found the dismissal unfair and unlawful, the court assessed remedies per Grievant: one month notice at Kshs. 11,374, six months' compensation computed from basic and house allowance, leave dues and allowance for 2012, and gratuity for the period served, with certificates of service. The claimant obtained costs since the Respondent never entered appearance or filed a defence despite service.
Legal principles established
#- Procedural fairness under Section 41 of the Employment Act requires the employer to hear and consider the employee's representations before termination or summary dismissal; failure to do so renders the dismissal unlawful and unfair
- An employer relying on a CBA procedure must actually comply with it; absence of suspension and investigation under the CBA's suspension pending investigations rule vitiates a summary dismissal
Court orders
#- 1.For Nthusi Makau Willy: one month notice Kshs. 11,374; 6 months' compensation for unfair termination Kshs. 68,244; annual leave plus leave allowance for 2012 Kshs. 11,701; gratuity for period served Kshs. 48,995; certificate of service
- 2.For Joseph Mutuku: one month notice Kshs. 11,374; 6 months' compensation for unfair termination Kshs. 68,244; annual leave plus leave allowance for 2012 Kshs. 11,701; gratuity for period served Kshs. 69,994; certificate of service
- 3.Claimant awarded costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Referral of an unresolved labour dispute following conciliation at the Labour Office Machakos under the Employment Act and the labour disputes resolution framework (exact provision not stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tailors & Textiles Workers Union v Rupa Cotton Mills (Epz) Limited (Athi River) [2018] KEELRC 698 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Case No 860 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/698/eng@2018-10-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.