Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No. 1515 of 2014· [2018] KEELRC 1974 (KLR)

Mary Aoko Oduor v Sparkfresh Investments Limited [2018] KEELRC 1974 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
27 April 2018
1,959 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 ruled that dismissing an employee by text message without a hearing or proof of misconduct was unfair, awarding her damages.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent from 27 May 2013, fell ill on 17 June 2014 after a water tank burst incident at the Respondent's Karen plant and was hospitalised until 20 June 2014. Her sick leave was extended by text to 25 June 2014, but on 24 June 2014 she received an SMS from a company officer, Chrisantus Mogeni, terminating her services, with terminal dues of Kshs. 42,143 later deposited into her account. She sued for terminal dues for unfair, wrongful and unlawful dismissal, reinstatement and pay in lieu of notice, including salary for the unexpired period of an 18-month contract. The Respondent contended she was a casual employee who never signed the contract offered on 19 February 2014, and that her absenteeism and alleged deceit warranted summary dismissal; it relied on the Ugandan Supreme Court decision in Bank of Uganda vs Betty Tinkamanyire against compensation for the unexpired contract period. The court framed three issues: validity of reasons, due process, and appropriate orders. Relying on Sections 37(1), 41, 43 and 45(2) of the Employment Act, the court held that the Claimant, having served over a year, was deemed employed on monthly terms; that the Respondent failed to prove the alleged absenteeism, producing no muster roll while the Claimant produced medical records; and that dismissal by text message without hearing breached Section 41. The dismissal was found unfair and unjustified, and the Claimant was awarded Kshs. 265,625 comprising notice pay, 8 months' damages, leave pay and unpaid June 2014 salary, plus costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Status of the Claimant's employment

Holding

Though she never signed the contract, having served over one year she was deemed a permanent and pensionable employee under Section 37(1) of the Employment Act

Reasoning

RW2 confirmed the Claimant was employed on 27 May 2013 and served slightly over one year at termination. The Respondent did not produce employment records such as the muster roll. The court applied Section 37(1), deeming a casual employee who has worked for the equivalent of one month or more to be employed on monthly wage terms.

p. 2
02

Validity of reasons for dismissal

Holding

The Claimant was dismissed without valid reasons because the Respondent failed to prove the alleged absenteeism and misconduct

Reasoning

The Respondent alleged absenteeism and absconding but never produced employment records like the muster roll. The Claimant produced medical records proving hospitalisation from 17 to 20 June 2014. Under Section 43, an employer must give minimum justification and prove the reasons for dismissal; the burden was not discharged.

p. 3
03

Due process before dismissal

Holding

The dismissal by text message without notice or hearing violated Section 41 of the Employment Act

Reasoning

The Respondent conceded the dismissal was effected by text message. Section 41 requires the employer to explain the reasons for termination, allow an employee representative, and hear and consider representations. There was no indication this process was followed, so the Claimant was dismissed without due process.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A casual employee who has worked for the equivalent of not less than one month is deemed under Section 37(1) of the Employment Act to be employed on monthly terms, attracting the protections of Section 35(1)(c)
  • The burden lies on the employer to prove the reasons for termination, failing which the termination is deemed unfair under Section 43 of the Employment Act
  • Under Section 45(2), termination is unfair where the employer fails to prove a valid and fair reason and fair procedure

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Payment of 1 month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 25,000
  2. 2.Damages for unfair termination equivalent to 8 months' salary of Kshs. 200,000
  3. 3.Payment in lieu of leave for 1 year of Kshs. 25,000
  4. 4.Unpaid salary for days worked in June 2014 of Kshs. 15,625 (total Kshs. 265,625)
  5. 5.The Respondent to pay costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Cause proceedings under the Employment Act, 2007)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mary Aoko Oduor v Sparkfresh Investments Limited [2018] KEELRC 1974 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 1515 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1974/eng@2018-04-27

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