Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 1665 of 2013· [2018] KEELRC 1200 (KLR)

Joseph Muramba Makokha v Amicarbe Travel Service Ltd [2018] KEELRC 1200 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Nairobi
20 April 2018
1,975 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a driver's entire claim because he ignored his employer's show-cause notice and skipped the disciplinary hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent on 25th September 2008 as a driver on a salary of Kshs.10,000.00 later increased to Kshs.19,239.00, was summarily dismissed on 26th August 2013 on the grounds that on 20th and 23rd August 2013 he was found carrying unauthorised passengers and operating off-route along Jogoo Road, contrary to his contract and signed code of conduct. He claimed unfair and discriminatory termination, Kshs.1,245,812.29 in unpaid overtime (alleging he worked 11-hour days, 6 days a week), unpaid August 2013 salary, notice pay, pro rata leave, compensation, unremitted NHIF and NSSF dues, and damages. The respondent maintained the dismissal was justified as gross misconduct under section 44(4) of the Employment Act, 2007, that the claimant refused to accept show cause notices and to attend a disciplinary hearing, and that overtime was catered for in shift allowances. The court found the claimant bound by his contract and code of conduct and under an obligation to respond to the show cause notice or attend the disciplinary hearing; his failure justified summary dismissal under section 44(4) and the respondent had discharged its duty under section 41(2). Notice pay and compensation were not due; salary was due only to 26th August 2013; overtime was covered by shift allowance and the records showed he did not work weekends; and statutory dues are payable to the statutory bodies, not the employee. The entire claim was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs, read in open court on 20th April 2018.

Key legal issues

#
01

Justification of summary dismissal under section 44(4) of the Employment Act

Holding

The summary dismissal was justified; the claimant breached his contract and code of conduct by carrying unauthorised passengers and going off-route, and refused to respond to the show cause notice or attend the disciplinary hearing.

Reasoning

The court found the claimant was bound by his employment contract and code of conduct to follow set routes and not carry unauthorised passengers. He was served with notices to show cause but refused to accept them, and declined to attend the disciplinary hearing. Where the claimant felt innocent he ought to have attended to disapprove the allegations. His failure amounted to insubordination, discharging the respondent's duty under section 41(2) and justifying dismissal under section 44(4).

p. 2
02

Entitlement to notice pay and compensation

Holding

None due in a justified summary dismissal.

Reasoning

Because the dismissal was found justified under section 44(4), notice pay and compensation for unfair termination do not arise. Salary was only due up to 26th August 2013, the date of dismissal; claims beyond that date without labour offered would amount to unjust enrichment.

p. 2
03

Overtime claim

Holding

Declined; overtime was covered by shift allowance and the claimant did not work weekends.

Reasoning

The respondent produced work records showing timelines and work sheets, and salaries paid were inclusive of shift allowances and overtime hours worked. Records showed the claimant was not at work during weekends, undermining his claim that he worked 11 hours a day for 6 days a week from 5am to after 9pm without overtime pay.

p. 3
04

Claims for unremitted NSSF and NHIF

Holding

Not payable to the claimant even if not remitted.

Reasoning

Statutory deductions arising from employment are due to the statutory bodies legally empowered to receive them. The claimant cannot claim them personally, and the court cannot justify such an award to him.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee served with a notice to show cause who fails to respond or attend a disciplinary hearing cannot later claim the allegations were fabricated; failure to attend justifies summary dismissal under section 44(4) of the Employment Act
  • Statutory dues such as NSSF and NHIF arising out of employment are payable to the statutory bodies and cannot be awarded to the employee
  • Notice pay and compensation are not payable where a summary dismissal is justified

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claims made are without merit and are hereby dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall bear own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007section 44(3)
  • Employment Act, 2007section 44(4)
  • Employment Act, 2007section 41(2)

Cases cited (3)

  • CMC Aviation Limited versus Mohammed Noor
    [2015] eKLR
  • Thomas Sila Nzivo versus Bamburi Cement Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Justus Wambua Kavyu versus Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
    [2016] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution / Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (Employment and Labour Relations Court, first-instance jurisdiction over employment disputes)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joseph Muramba Makokha v Amicarbe Travel Service Ltd [2018] KEELRC 1200 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 1665 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1200/eng@2018-04-20

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