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 94 of 2017· [2018] KEELRC 2481 (KLR)

Ronald Wamalwa & another v Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology [2018] KEELRC 2481 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
1 February 2018
3,693 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenyan employees who refuse to attend disciplinary hearings cannot later claim unfair dismissal, though they keep salary, leave and a certificate of service.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimants, former employees of Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, were summarily dismissed on 15th November 2016. They alleged victimisation for union activities and denial of a fair hearing, seeking a declaration of unlawfulness, reinstatement, damages, certificates of service and costs. The Respondent contended the Claimants were dismissed for disrupting a meeting in the Vice Chancellor's Boardroom and for repeatedly refusing to attend disciplinary hearings. The dispute was referred to the County Labour Officer for conciliation, whose report recommended reinstatement, but the Respondent rejected it. The parties agreed the court determine the dispute on the report and the Respondent's submissions. The court found that the Claimants, as union officials, attended the 15th August 2016 meeting and disrupted it, and that they were invited to disciplinary hearings five times but refused to attend, whereas a co-accused, Lydia Nandemo, attended and was absolved. Relying on section 41 of the Employment Act and precedent, the court held an employee who refuses to attend a disciplinary hearing cannot complain of denial of a hearing, and found valid reason for dismissal under sections 41, 43 and 47. The claim of victimisation for union activities failed for want of evidence. The court declined the declaration, reinstatement, damages and service pay (the Claimants being pensionable and NSSF members), but awarded salary and allowances up to dismissal, leave due, and certificates of service under section 51, payable within 30 days failing which interest would accrue.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether dismissal for refusing to attend disciplinary hearings was unfair

Holding

Dismissal was fair; valid reason existed as Claimants refused to submit to the disciplinary process despite five invitations

Reasoning

Section 41 of the Employment Act requires an employee be heard before termination. The Claimants were summoned five times and refused to attend, while a co-accused, Lydia Nandemo, attended and was absolved, demonstrating the opportunity existed. Their own appeal letter admitted non-attendance. The employer therefore had valid reason under sections 41, 43 and 47, and the claim of victimisation for union activities was unsupported by evidence.

p. 7
02

Whether Claimants were victimised for union activities

Holding

Claim failed; no evidence of victimisation beyond mere union office

Reasoning

The County Labour Officer's report found victimisation and unfair labour practices, but the court found that apart from being union officials the Claimants produced no evidence that union activities motivated the dismissal. The stated reason was refusal to submit to the disciplinary process, which the documentary record and minutes corroborated.

p. 6
03

Entitlement to remedies

Holding

Only accrued salary, allowances, leave due and certificate of service awarded

Reasoning

Having found the termination lawful, the court declined reinstatement, declaration, damages and service pay (Claimants being pensionable and NSSF members). Claimants retained statutory entitlements accrued to the date of dismissal, including certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act, payable within 30 days failing which interest would accrue.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee who refuses to attend disciplinary hearings cannot later claim denial of a fair hearing; procedural fairness under section 41 is met by an opportunity to be heard
  • Procedural fairness under section 41 is fulfilled by a show-cause letter and opportunity to attend an oral hearing; the employee may not decline and then claim lack of hearing

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Claimants awarded salary and allowances up to the date of dismissal and any leave due as at that date
  2. 2.Respondent directed to issue certificates of service in terms of section 51 of the Employment Act
  3. 3.Respondent directed to pay salary and leave due within 30 days failing which interest shall accrue from date of judgment
  4. 4.Claims for declaration of unlawful termination, reinstatement, damages and service pay declined

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Section 41
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 43
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 44(4)(d)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 45(5)(a)-(f)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 47
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 51
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 28, 29(c), 41, 50
  • Labour Relations Act, 2007Not specified
  • KUSU ConstitutionArticles 4(h) and 20
  • KUSU CBAClause 11.3(iii)

Cases cited (2)

  • Mathew Lucy Cherusa v Poverelle Sisters of Belgano T/A Blessed Louis Palazzalo Health Centre
    [2013] eKLR
  • Jackson Butiya v Eastern Produce
    Cause 335 of 2011
Jurisdiction invoked
Dispute referred to the Employment and Labour Relations Court following conciliation before the County Labour Officer, Kakamega, under the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act framework

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ronald Wamalwa & another v Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology [2018] KEELRC 2481 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No 94 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2481/eng@2018-02-01

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