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. 936 of 2014· [2018] KEELRC 1304 (KLR)

William Wambua Munyao v Thika Coffee Mills [2018] KEELRC 1304 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
31 July 2018
DMD. K. Njagi MareteMOMaureen Onyango
1,703 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled a mill unfairly fired its employee because it could not prove a fair disciplinary process, awarding notice pay and compensation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by Kenya Nut Company on 1st September 2004 as a fitter/welder and transferred to the respondent on 1st October 2010 where he became Team Leader in charge of the Technical Department earning Kshs.53,059.00 monthly, claimed constructive and unfair termination of employment. He alleged that a memorandum of 18th October 2012 scrapped his position, that he was sent on leave to facilitate investigations into low production, and that his representations were never considered before his summary dismissal on 4th February 2013. He sought one month's salary in lieu of notice, twelve months' compensation under section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act and section 15 of the Labour Institutions Act, a certificate of service, and costs. The respondent denied the claim, asserting that the claimant caused frequent machinery breakdowns, that terminal dues were paid and acknowledged, and that the claimant was accorded a fair hearing and opportunities to make representations. The matter proceeded to judgment on the pleadings on 16th April 2018 in the absence of the defence. The court framed three issues: unlawfulness of the termination, entitlement to relief, and costs. Finding that the respondent filed no submissions and adduced no evidence of disciplinary proceedings compliant with sections 41(1) and (2) of the Employment Act, the court held the claimant's uncontradicted case overwhelming and found the termination unlawful. The claim was allowed: one month's notice pay, six months' compensation totalling Kshs.318,354.00, an order for a certificate of service, and costs to the claimant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was wrongful, unfair and unlawful

Holding

The termination was unlawful because the respondent failed to adduce evidence of disciplinary proceedings conducted in compliance with section 41(1) and (2) of the Employment Act, leaving the claimant's case uncontradicted.

Reasoning

The claimant submitted that sections 45(1), 45(4)(b) and 45(5) of the Employment Act were violated, relying on authorities emphasising substantive and procedural fairness under sections 43 and 41(1) and (2). The respondent filed no submissions and did not rebut the claim with evidence of a fair disciplinary process. Applying the preponderance of evidence and balance of probability, the court found the claimant's case overwhelming and held the termination unlawful.

p. 3
02

Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought

Holding

Having succeeded on unlawful termination, the claimant was entitled to relief: one month's salary in lieu of notice, six months' salary as compensation, and a certificate of service.

Reasoning

The court reasoned that a claimant who wins on a finding of unlawful termination of employment becomes entitled to the relief sought. It awarded one month's notice pay of Kshs.53,059.00 and six months' compensation of Kshs.318,354.00, and ordered issuance of the certificate of service which the respondent had failed to issue contrary to section 51 of the Employment Act.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer alleging a valid termination bears the duty to adduce evidence of disciplinary proceedings conducted in compliance with section 41(1) and (2) of the Employment Act; in the absence of such evidence, the employee's uncontradicted case prevails.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.One (1) month salary in lieu of notice of Kshs.53,059.00
  2. 2.Six (6) months salary as compensation for unlawful termination of employment, Kshs.53,059.00 x 6 = Kshs.318,354.00
  3. 3.The respondent be and is hereby ordered to issue the claimant with a certificate of service
  4. 4.The cost of this claim shall be borne by the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41(1)
  • Employment ActSection 41(2)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 43
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 45(1), 45(4)(b) and 45(5)
  • Employment ActSection 49(1)(c)
  • Employment ActSection 51
  • Labour Institutions ActSection 15

Cases cited (2)

  • Mary Chepmweno Kiptui v Kenya Pipeline Kenya Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Meru North Farmers Sacco Limited
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Industrial Court of Kenya jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes (Cause No. 936 of 2014)

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.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "William Wambua Munyao v Thika Coffee Mills [2018] KEELRC 1304 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 936 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1304/eng@2018-07-31

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