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 1833 of 2014· [2018] KEELRC 1406 (KLR)

Master Boniface Mutua v East Africa Cans and Closures Limited [2018] KEELRC 1406 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
20 July 2018
ANAbuodha J. N.
864 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled an employer can fire for cause, but skipping a documented disciplinary process still makes the dismissal unfair and costly.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent as a machine operator on annual renewable contracts earning a net salary that rose from Kshs 9,515 to Kshs 13,201 per month, alleged that his services were summarily terminated on 7th August 2014 without notice or justifiable cause. The respondent asserted that the termination followed loss of faith in the claimant's ability owing to negligence - evidenced by a finger injury sustained while feeding discs into a tin-moulding machine with bare hands - and misconduct, including sleeping on duty and frequent suspicious sick-offs traced to a clinic that investigations suggested did not exist or was not genuine. The respondent claimed the claimant was heard in the presence of a co-worker and paid his terminal dues. The claimant denied any disciplinary hearing and any reason being given for the dismissal. The court found that a valid reason for termination existed, given the reasonable attempts to authenticate the dubious sick-offs and the evidence of negligence and sleeping on duty. However, it was not persuaded that the claimant was taken through a disciplinary process as contemplated under the Employment Act, as there was no documentation that he was confronted with the accusations and his response sought. The termination letter also failed to assign reasons, which the court held would render the dismissal unfair under Section 45 of the Employment Act. The court awarded the claimant six months' salary (Kshs 79,206) for unfair dismissal, subject to taxes and statutory deductions, plus Kshs 19,708 per the termination letter if not already paid, and costs of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the reason for termination

Holding

The court found there existed a valid reason for termination based on the claimant's questionable sick-offs, negligence and sleeping on duty.

Reasoning

The respondent made reasonable attempts to authenticate the claimant's numerous sick-offs through the Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health Services, which traced them to a clinic whose genuineness was in doubt. The frequency and consistency of the ailments claimed raised doubts, and witnesses testified to negligence and sleeping on duty, satisfying the substantive validity test.

p. 1
02

Procedural fairness of the termination

Holding

The court found the termination procedurally unfair as the claimant was not taken through a disciplinary process as contemplated under the Employment Act.

Reasoning

There was no documentary evidence that the claimant was confronted with the accusations against him and afforded an opportunity to respond. The termination letter merely communicated the decision without assigning reasons, which the court held would render the dismissal unfair under Section 45 of the Employment Act.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Although the Employment Act does not expressly require an employer to assign reasons in the termination letter, failure to assign reasons for dismissal would render the termination unfair under Section 45 of the Employment Act.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Award of six months' salary for unfair dismissal (Kshs 79,206)
  2. 2.Award of Kshs 19,708 as per the termination letter if not already paid
  3. 3.Costs to the claimant
  4. 4.The award under item (a) to be subject to taxes and statutory deductions

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 45
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and the Labour Relations Act (not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Master Boniface Mutua v East Africa Cans and Closures Limited [2018] KEELRC 1406 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause 1833 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1406/eng@2018-07-20

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