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. 109 of 2016· [2018] KEELRC 1981 (KLR)

Lilian Ngeno & 3 others v Juliana Yegon & another [2018] KEELRC 1981 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
18 May 2018
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
2,541 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed four school workers' unfair dismissal claims because their employer followed a proper disciplinary process before firing them.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Four employees of Moi Siongiroi Girls High School - an Accounts Clerk, Security Officer, Cook and Groundsman - claimed wrongful, unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional termination of their employment following dismissal on 8 June 2016. They alleged they were denied reasons, warning letters and a fair hearing contrary to sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act and Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution, and sought a declaration of unfair termination, reinstatement with full benefits, costs and interest. They linked their dismissal to their knowledge of examination malpractice at the school. The respondents denied the claim, asserting the claimants were implicated in the loss of sugar, rice, finger millet and wheat flour from the school stores between November and December 2015 while on duty. They showed the claimants were heard on 18 January 2016 before suspension and on 30 May 2016 before the full Board in the presence of a KUDHEIHA union representative, that police declined to prosecute and recommended administrative action, and that terminal dues were paid on a gratuitous basis. The court framed three issues: whether the termination was wrongful and unfair; whether the claimants were entitled to relief; and costs. Relying on the respondents' documentation, particularly the full board minutes, the court found the claimants had been accorded fair disciplinary hearings and failed to exonerate themselves, amounting to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. The claim was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

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

Holding

The termination was lawful; the claimants were given hearings on 18 January 2016 and 30 May 2016 with union representation, and failed to exonerate themselves

Reasoning

The court examined the respondent's documentary evidence, particularly the minutes of the Full Board Meeting of 30 May 2016, and found the claimants were taken through a disciplinary process in which they were heard in the presence of their union representative. They could not explain the loss of stores under their watch. The court found their case outweighed and dismissed allegations of denial of hearing as unfounded.

p. 4
02

Whether the claimants were entitled to the relief sought

Holding

They were not entitled to the relief sought since the claim failed

Reasoning

Reinstatement and declaration were premised on a finding of unfair termination. The court found termination justified as summary dismissal for gross misconduct following a fair process, and terminal dues had already been paid on a gratuitous basis. Consequently the claim was dismissed in its entirety.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Section 41 of the Employment Act is mandatory; non-compliance renders any resulting termination unfair
  • Where a claimant fails to prove unfair termination, relief sought cannot be granted

Court orders

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

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41(1)
  • Employment ActSection 43(1)
  • Employment ActSection 44(1) and (2)
  • Employment ActSection 45
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 47 and 50

Cases cited (1)

  • Mary Chemweno Kiptui v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited
    (2014) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment Act, No. 11 of 2007); claim brought as a Statement of Claim under the court's employment jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lilian Ngeno & 3 others v Juliana Yegon & another [2018] KEELRC 1981 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 109 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1981/eng@2018-05-18

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