Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 242 of 2015· [2018] KEELRC 1700 (KLR)

Micah Kipkoech Terer v Sotik Tea Company Limited [2018] KEELRC 1700 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
20 June 2018
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
3,162 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court upheld Sotik Tea's dismissal of an employee, confirming that a proper disciplinary process and valid reasons defeat unfair termination claims.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent as an Assistant Manager in the Engineering Department from 2009, was dismissed in 2013 after writing a letter questioning promotion criteria and, subsequently, sending an abusive text message to the Deputy General Manager. He filed an Amended Memorandum of Claim seeking a declaration that his termination was unconstitutional, unlawful and untimely, plus dues of Kshs.13,844,316 comprising compensation for breach of contract, overtime/underpayment and unpaid bonus. The respondent defended the claim, asserting valid and fair reasons for termination: the abusive text message, negligence contributing to the electrocution death of an electrician, unlawful instructions for an employee's eviction, and a conflict of interest arising from salary deductions channeled to the claimant's wife's money-lending business. The respondent also pleaded that part of the overtime claim was time-barred. The matter was determined on written submissions. The court framed three issues: lawfulness of termination, entitlement to relief, and costs. It found the respondent complied with sections 41, 43, 44 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007: the claimant was served with a show cause letter, given disciplinary hearings with representation, and could not exonerate himself. On a balance of probability, the court held the termination lawful, dismissed the claim, and ordered each party to bear their own costs. The judgment was delivered by D.K.N. Marete, J, on 20th June 2018 at Kericho.

Key legal issues

#
01

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

Holding

The termination was lawful. The claimant was served with a show cause letter, subjected to disciplinary proceedings with an opportunity to be heard, and the respondent proved valid and fair reasons (abusive text message, negligence leading to an employee's electrocution death, conflict of interest through unlawful salary deductions).

Reasoning

The court found the respondent's evidence showed compliance with sections 41, 43, 44 and 45 of the Employment Act. The claimant was unable to exonerate himself in disciplinary proceedings and the respondent's case outweighed his on a balance of probability. The claimant's authorities on substantive and procedural fairness were distinguished as inapplicable on the facts.

p. 5
02

Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought

Holding

The claimant is not entitled to relief, having failed to establish unlawful termination.

Reasoning

Entitlement to compensation and other dues was premised on a finding of unfair termination. Since the court found the termination lawful and justified, the ancillary claims for breach of contract compensation, overtime and unpaid bonus necessarily fell away.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • For a termination to pass the fairness test there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
  • The employer must prove the reason for termination; failure to do so renders the termination unfair under section 45 of the Employment Act.
  • Procedural fairness requires the employee be informed of the charges, given an opportunity to prepare and be heard, and have representations considered before dismissal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the claim

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007section 43
  • Employment Act, 2007section 45(1) and (2)
  • Employment Act, 2007section 44(4)(d)
  • Employment Act, 2007section 41

Cases cited (3)

  • Moses Kaunda Moro v. CMC Motors Group Ltd
    [2013] eKLR
  • Walter Ogal Anuro v. Teachers Service Commission
    [2013] eKLR
  • Anthony Mkala Chitavi v Malindi Water Company Ltd
    [2013] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act over employment claims

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Micah Kipkoech Terer v Sotik Tea Company Limited [2018] KEELRC 1700 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 242 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1700/eng@2018-06-20

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