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. 16 of 2014· [2018] KEELRC 1988 (KLR)

Isaya Kisivuli Ambugu v General Secretary Free Pentecostal Fellowship In Kenya t/a Bukhungu Youth Polytechnic [2018] KEELRC 1988 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
10 May 2018
2,652 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled a night watchman was unfairly fired, saying churches and societies can be sued in the name employees know them by, and awarded him over Kshs.131,000.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant sued the General Secretary of the Free Pentecostal Fellowship in Kenya, trading as Bukhungu Youth Polytechnic, alleging unfair termination of his employment on 12th April 2012 after 27 years of service, and sought general damages for wrongful dismissal, compensation, leave allowance, costs and interest. The respondent denied the claim and argued it was wrongfully sued because the claimant should have sued it through its trustees. The court framed four issues: whether the respondent was the claimant's employer; whether it was wrongfully sued; whether the termination was unfair; and what remedies were due. On the documents, including a compulsory leave letter signed by the respondent's General Secretary and NSSF records from 1995 to 2002, the court found an employment relationship existed. It rejected the technical objection that the society should have been sued through its trustees, holding that the pre-2010 authorities relied on by the respondent no longer apply under Article 159(2) of the Constitution and the substantive justice mandate of the ELRC Act, and that an employee may sue the employer in the name known in the contract of employment, especially where the employee is unrepresented and semi-literate. The verbal termination without reasons or a hearing breached Sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act and was declared unfair under Section 45(2). The court awarded maximum compensation of 12 months' salary computed on the statutory minimum consolidated wage for a night watchman (Kshs.96,241.20), notice pay of Kshs.8,020.10, leave for only 3 years (Kshs.16,842.20) due to the limitation period, and costs of Kshs.10,000, totaling Kshs.131,103.50, with interest on notice and leave from filing and on compensation and costs from judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondent was the claimant's employer

Holding

The claimant proved an employment relationship with the respondent through documentary evidence, including the compulsory leave letter signed by the General Secretary and NSSF records

Reasoning

The claimant produced a letter of reference, a letter sending him on compulsory leave signed by Rev. Julius Bagaka as General Secretary of the respondent, NSSF statements showing contributions from 1995 to 2002, and a wages claim from the County Labour Office addressed to the respondent. These documents were not contested. The respondent's witness admitted Bagaka was General Secretary. His denial of knowledge of the claimant could not override the documentary evidence. The submission that the polytechnic was run by Swedish Mission Council had no evidential or pleading support.

p. 3
02

Whether the respondent was wrongfully sued for not being sued through its trustees

Holding

The suit was valid; an employee may sue the employer in the name known in the contract of employment, and technical objections cannot defeat substantive employment rights

Reasoning

The respondent relied on authorities requiring societies to be sued through named trustees. The court held that this position no longer applies under the Constitution of 2010, Article 159(2), and Sections 3 and 20(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, which mandate substantive justice. The Employment Act's definition of employer includes non-legal persons such as firms, agents and managers. Since the employment relationship was established, the claimant could not be denied audience, and no prejudice was occasioned to the respondent.

p. 4
03

Whether the claimant's termination was unfair

Holding

The termination was unfair for want of valid reason and lack of procedural fairness under Sections 41, 43 and 45(2) of the Employment Act

Reasoning

The claimant testified he was verbally terminated by Rev. Babu of the head office without notice or reasons. Section 41 requires the employer to explain the reasons and hear the employee before termination; this was not done. Section 43 requires valid reasons; none were given. The respondent did not deny that Rev. Babu worked for it, and did not call him to rebut the claimant's averments. The termination therefore failed both substantive and procedural requirements and was unfair under Section 45(2).

p. 4
04

What remedies the claimant is entitled to

Holding

Maximum 12 months' compensation computed on the statutory minimum consolidated wage, notice pay, and leave for 3 years only, plus costs

Reasoning

Having worked 27 years, the claimant was awarded the maximum 12 months' compensation under Section 49(4). Because his actual salary of Kshs.4,000 was below the statutory minimum, Sections 26 of the Employment Act and 48(1) of the Labour Institutions Act required use of the minimum consolidated wage for a night watchman (Kshs.6,974 plus 15% house allowance). Leave could not be awarded for 27 years due to the 3-year limitation under Section 90, so 63 days were awarded. Costs of Kshs.10,000 were awarded for disbursements given his unrepresented status.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An employment relationship is a question of fact, and the manner in which the employer is described in the proceedings cannot be used to deny an employee his employment rights
  • An employee may sue his employer in the name by which the employer is known in the contract of employment, particularly where the employee is unrepresented and semi-literate
  • A society need not be sued through its trustees in employment claims, since Article 159(2) and the ELRC Act require substantive justice over procedural technicalities

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the termination of the claimant's employment by the respondent was unfair
  2. 2.Award of maximum compensation of 12 months' salary computed at the statutory minimum consolidated wage, Kshs.96,241.20
  3. 3.Award of one month's salary in lieu of notice at Kshs.8,020.10
  4. 4.Award of leave for 3 years at 21 days per year (63 days) at Kshs.16,842.20
  5. 5.Award of costs of Kshs.10,000 to cover disbursements
  6. 6.Total award of Kshs.131,103.50
  7. 7.Interest on the notice and leave awards from the date of filing suit, and on compensation and costs from the date of judgment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2); Article 27(1)
  • Employment ActSection 2; Sections 26, 41, 43, 45(2), 49(4), 90
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSections 3 and 20(1)
  • Labour Institutions ActSection 48(1)
  • Regulation of Wages (General Order) 2010Minimum wage for night watchman under municipalities

Cases cited (3)

  • Kazungu Kalama and Another -vs- Victor Okoth Waudi
    Cause No. 446 of 2015 consolidated with Cause No. 468 of 2015
  • Grace Mwenda Munjuri -vs- Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya
    Cause No. 1317 of 2010
  • Voi Jua Kali Association -vs- Sange and Another
    (2003) 2 KLR 474
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Sections 3 and 20(1); Employment Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Isaya Kisivuli Ambugu v General Secretary Free Pentecostal Fellowship In Kenya t/a Bukhungu Youth Polytechnic [2018] KEELRC 1988 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 16 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1988/eng@2018-05-10

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