Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedKisumu ELRC Cause (number not stated in the judgment; referenced matter: Kisumu Industrial Court Case No. 296 of 2014)· [2018] KEELRC 1436 (KLR)

National Union of Water And Sewerage Employees & Lake Victoria North Water Services Board Kakamega-Busia Water Supply [2018] KEELRC 1436 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 July 2018
3,807 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that dismissing two union officials without a hearing was unfair and anti-union, awarding them over Kshs. 2.7 million each.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, a registered trade union with a recognition agreement with the respondent Board, sued on behalf of two grievants, Wilson N. Chitechi (Branch Chairman) and Gilbert K. Kaliboh (Branch Secretary), both scheme managers summarily dismissed on 27th October 2014. The union alleged the grievants were dismissed for attending the respondent's disciplinary hearings on 13th and 14th October 2014 as union representatives, that no disciplinary process was followed, and that the dismissal violated Article 41 of the Constitution and Sections 4 and 5 of the Labour Relations Act. It sought a declaration that the dismissal was unlawful, reinstatement or alternatively terminal dues, and general damages. Its contemporaneous application for mandatory interim reinstatement was consolidated with the Claim. The respondent, whose response was expunged for late filing, relied on the replying affidavit of its Managing Director alleging gross misconduct - absenteeism, insulting the Managing Director, insubordination and disruption of a management meeting - and pleaded a prior suit (Kisumu Case No. 296 of 2014) and lack of locus standi. RW1, the Human Resource Officer, admitted she was not at the meeting and that a recognition agreement existed. The court found the dismissal unfair substantively and procedurally: the grievants were never given a hearing or allowed to respond to generalised charges, which were unproved; past warnings had lapsed under Rule 16 of the General Order; and the dismissals arose from union activities, violating Articles 36 and 41(2)(c) and Sections 46(e), 4 and 5. Reinstatement was refused for lapse of time. Each grievant was awarded notice pay, 2014 bonus and leave allowance, maximum 12 months' compensation, and Kshs. 2 million general damages, totalling Kshs. 2,748,255.50 each, with interest and costs of Kshs. 150,000 to the union.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the summary dismissal of the Grievants was substantively and procedurally fair

Holding

The dismissal was unfair both substantively and procedurally: no disciplinary hearing or opportunity to respond to the charges was afforded, and the charges were not proved.

Reasoning

Section 41 of the Employment Act requires a fair hearing before dismissal and Section 43 requires the employer to prove reasons; under Section 45(2) non-compliance renders dismissal unfair. RW1 admitted she was not at the meeting giving rise to the dismissal. The grievants were never taken through any disciplinary process or asked to respond to the charges. Their evidence that they had permission to attend union hearings was unrebutted, and performance accusations were unsupported by any prior evidence. Past warning letters from 2010-2013 had lapsed under Rule 16 of the General Order.

p. 5
02

Whether the dismissal violated the Grievants' freedom of association and rights against unfair labour practices

Holding

Yes - the dismissals arose from union activities and violated Articles 36 and 41(2)(c) of the Constitution, Section 46(e) of the Employment Act and Sections 4 and 5 of the Labour Relations Act.

Reasoning

The grievants were registered branch officials of the claimant union and were dismissed for attending the respondent's disciplinary hearings in their capacity as union representatives to protect members' right to be represented. The court found the dismissals arose from undertaking union activities, constituting victimisation for exercise of constitutional freedoms, and contravened statutory protections against anti-union discrimination.

p. 5
03

What remedies were available for the unfair and unlawful dismissal

Holding

Reinstatement was refused due to lapse of time; terminal dues, notice pay, 2014 bonus and leave allowance, maximum 12 months' compensation and Kshs. 2 million general damages each were awarded.

Reasoning

Although reinstatement would ordinarily have been granted for union officials dismissed without valid reason or procedure, it was unavailable due to lapse of time. Terminal dues including pay in lieu of notice flow from Section 49(1). Maximum compensation under Section 49(4) was justified by the respondent's refusal to avail itself for statutory conciliation, the manner of dismissal and length of service. General damages of Kshs. 2 million each reflected punishment for exercise of constitutional freedoms. Claims for salary to retirement were refused.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Non-compliance with Sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act renders a dismissal unfair
  • Charges not put to an employee for response and not supported by evidence cannot found a valid summary dismissal
  • Warning letters lapse after 12 months and two valid warnings plus a disciplinary hearing are required before dismissal
  • Dismissing union officials for undertaking union activities violates their constitutional freedom of association

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the summary dismissal of the Grievants was unfair both substantively and procedurally and violated their freedom of association
  2. 2.Payment to each Grievant of one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 55,097.00)
  3. 3.Payment to each Grievant of yearly bonuses for 2014 (Kshs. 19,195.50) and leave allowance (Kshs. 12,799.00)
  4. 4.Maximum compensation equivalent to 12 months' gross salary (Kshs. 661,164.00) to each Grievant
  5. 5.General damages of Kshs. 2,000,000 to each Grievant for violation of constitutional freedoms of association and fair labour practices
  6. 6.Interest on items (i) to (iii) from date of filing suit and on items (iv) and (v) at court rates from date of judgment
  7. 7.Costs to the claimant union assessed at Kshs. 150,000 to cover reasonable costs and disbursements including witness expenses

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 36
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41(2)(c)
  • Employment Act, 2007Sections 4, 5, 40, 41, 43, 44, 44(4)(a), 44(4)(d), 44(4)(e), 45(2), 46(e), 49(1), 49(4), 51
  • Labour Relations ActSections 4, 5, Part VIII
  • Regulation of Wages and Conditions of Employment (General) OrderRule 16
  • Recognition Agreement between NUWASE and the RespondentClauses 2(e), 5.14.1(i), 5.16.5(v)

Cases cited (3)

  • D. K. Njagi Marete -V- Teachers Service Commission
    [2013] eKLR
  • Eng. Francis N. Gachuri -V- Energy Regulatory Commission
    [2013] eKLR
  • Menginya Salim Murgani -V- Kenya Revenue Authority
    [2010] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (Employment and labour relations dispute; matter referred under the Labour Relations Act conciliation process)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (4)

#

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, "National Union of Water And Sewerage Employees & Lake Victoria North Water Services Board Kakamega-Busia Water Supply [2018] KEELRC 1436 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Kisumu ELRC Cause (number not stated in the judgment; referenced matter: Kisumu Industrial Court Case No. 296 of 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1436/eng@2018-07-19

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