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. 2531 of 2012· [2018] KEELRC 746 (KLR)

Cecilia Martha Njeri Nduati & another v Presbyterian University of Africa [2018] KEELRC 746 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
29 October 2018
HWHellen S. Wasilwa
1,240 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

#

A Kenyan court ruled the university unfairly fired two staff members because it couldn't prove valid reasons, awarding them compensation, withheld salary and leave pay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Two former employees of the Presbyterian University of Africa - a Cateress/Catering Manager and an Executive Secretary to the Vice Chancellor - sued for wrongful and unfair termination following show-cause letters and disciplinary hearings in May and June 2012. The 1st Claimant was accused of negligence and inefficiency in catering administration, including missing items and absenteeism; the 2nd Claimant was accused of inefficiency in the Human Resource Office and leaving the office early. Both claimed they lacked valid reasons and fair procedure, and sought compensation, terminal benefits, gratuity, half salary for 15 months (October 2009 to December 2010) and certificates of service. The Respondent admitted the employment relationships but alleged unexplained absences and maintained that all terminal dues were paid. The court framed three issues: valid reasons, due process, and entitlement to reliefs. It found that while some reasons warranted some action against the 1st Claimant, they were not good reasons for termination - there was no police report or theft charges - and that no records of performance or attendance were produced against the 2nd Claimant. Both Claimants had, however, been accorded fair hearings. Applying Section 45(2) of the Employment Act, 2007, the court held the terminations unfair, awarded each Claimant three months' salary as compensation (reduced because they partly contributed to their terminations), half salary withheld for 15 months, and leave payments, together with certificates of service, costs and interest.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether there were valid reasons to terminate the Claimants' services

Holding

There were reasons to warrant some action but not good reasons to warrant termination; no valid reason was proved against either Claimant

Reasoning

The loss of items occurred under the 1st Claimant's watch but there was no police report and she was never charged with theft; she did not respond to the absenteeism accusation. For the 2nd Claimant, no performance records or attendance records were produced. The employer therefore failed to discharge the burden under Section 45(2) of proving valid and fair reasons.

p. 2
02

Whether the Claimants were accorded due process before termination

Holding

The process was fair - both Claimants were invited to and attended disciplinary hearings

Reasoning

Both Claimants admitted being called to disciplinary hearings and attending them, so the procedural limb of Section 45(2) was satisfied. The unfairness arose from the absence of valid reasons rather than procedural defect.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A termination is unfair under Section 45(2) of the Employment Act where the employer fails to prove a valid and fair reason and adherence to fair procedure; reasons that exist but are not good and sufficient do not justify termination.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Each Claimant awarded 3 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination
  2. 2.Each Claimant awarded half salary withheld for 15 months from October 2009 to December 2010
  3. 3.1st Claimant awarded 1 month's salary as leave payment (Kshs. 67,000/=); 2nd Claimant awarded 2 months' salary as leave payment (Kshs. 196,000/=)
  4. 4.1st Claimant to receive a total of Kshs. 770,500/= and the 2nd Claimant Kshs. 1,225,000/=
  5. 5.Respondent to issue each Claimant a Certificate of Service
  6. 6.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of the judgment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 45(2)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cecilia Martha Njeri Nduati & another v Presbyterian University of Africa [2018] KEELRC 746 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 2531 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/746/eng@2018-10-29

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