Maina Ng’ang’a v Pema Holdings Limited [2018] KEELRC 2263 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court awarded two security guards nine months' salary each because their employer could not prove it followed fair procedures before firing them.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimants were unfairly terminated
Yes - the services of the claimants were unfairly terminated as the respondent produced no evidence of notice, disciplinary process or steps to contact employees alleged to have absconded
The claimants denied being issued termination notices or being taken through a disciplinary process. The respondent alleged absconding but produced no evidence that it took reasonable steps to contact the employees or warn them of termination for absence. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the claimants' position stood uncontroverted, and the court found the terminations unfair.
Whether the claimants were entitled to underpayment, leave, gratuity, overtime and off days claims
No - these heads of claim were disallowed because the documents exhibited by the respondent reasonably proved they lacked merit
The respondent's witness explained the wage payment records and the applicable Regulation of Wages (Agricultural Industry) Order. The court accepted that the exhibited documents reasonably disproved the claims for underpayment, untaken leave, gratuity, overtime and off days, notwithstanding the claimants' oral evidence.
Legal principles established
#- In a claim for unfair termination, the onus of proving that unfair termination took place is on the claimant while the onus of proving the reasons for termination is on the employer
- Where termination is said to be on account of absconding duties, the employer must show it took reasonable steps to contact the employee and warn that absence would lead to termination
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the claimants
- 2.One month's salary in lieu of notice to each claimant
- 3.Eight months' salary as compensation for unfair termination of service to each claimant
- 4.Monthly wages computed as Kshs 4,500 for Maina Ng'ang'a and Kshs 5,850 for Jacob Mungai
- 5.Claimants to have the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act (first-instance employment cause)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maina Ng’ang’a v Pema Holdings Limited [2018] KEELRC 2263 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause Number 1725 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2263/eng@2018-02-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.