John Kiarie Ing’angi v Naisula Holdings Limited (Trading as Naisula School) [2018] KEELRC 855 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court awarded a dismissed worker 12 months' salary because his employer couldn't prove why it fired him or follow fair procedure.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair
The termination was unfair in both substance and procedure; the respondent failed to prove the reason for termination and to give notice and a hearing.
The court found the respondent's evidence contradictory and incoherent: no inventory of stolen items or occurrence book record was produced, and the witness's account of the claimant's alleged role in the theft shifted. The claimant's account was credible. Without proof of a valid reason (s.43) and without notice or disciplinary hearing (s.41), the dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair.
Quantum of compensation for unfair termination
The claimant was awarded 12 months' gross salary, Kshs. 420,000, under section 49 of the Employment Act, 2007.
The court considered that the claimant had served 3 years, desired to continue in employment, and did not contribute to the termination. Aggravating factors included that he left without terminal dues and had to vacate his housing accommodation within 30 minutes of dismissal.
Whether the claimant was entitled to pay in lieu of 3 years' leave
Yes; the claimant was awarded Kshs. 73,500 as prayed for.
The respondent argued the claimant took leave during school vacations, but the claimant testified his maintenance work intensified during vacations and that his leave request preceded the termination. The court found the claimant trustworthy and held he was not accorded annual leave contrary to section 28 of the Act.
Legal principles established
#- An employer bears the burden of establishing the reason for termination under section 43 of the Employment Act, 2007 and compliance with notice and hearing under section 41.
- Failure to accord an employee annual leave entitles the employee to pay in lieu of leave under section 28 of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The respondent to pay the claimant Kshs. 493,500.00 by 15.12.2018 failing which interest to be payable from the date of judgment till full payment
- 2.The respondent to pay the claimant the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (constitutional/statutory provision not expressly cited in the excerpt)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Kiarie Ing’angi v Naisula Holdings Limited (Trading as Naisula School) [2018] KEELRC 855 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/855/eng@2018-10-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.