William Anyka Amboye v Jaykay Enterprises Ltd [2018] KEELRC 2589 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld an employee's dismissal for tampering with goods, ruling his fixed-term contract ended on its own terms and rejecting all his payment claims.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Nature and duration of the employment relationship
The claimant was on an annual fixed-term contract ending December 2014, not continuous employment from 2000; the contract terminated on its terms when the claimant stopped attending work
The respondent's evidence that the claimant was on a one-year contract was not challenged in cross-examination. Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Employment Act allow oral contracts convertible into writing. Once issued with a written contract, the fixed-term contract had to end on its agreed terms when the claimant deserted duty and was paid terminal dues.
Justification of summary dismissal for gross misconduct
The dismissal was justified; tampering with goods in transit amounted to gross misconduct under section 44(4), and internal disciplinary processes differ from criminal trials
The claimant delayed delivery and delivered underweight sugar, damaging the respondent's integrity and goodwill. Though never criminally charged, employment disciplinary requirements differ from criminal proceedings. Reading section 44 with section 41(2), the claimant was questioned on his conduct before his dues were computed and paid.
Claims for overtime, off-duty, public holidays and leave
All such claims rejected as exaggerated, conflated and unsupported for the contract period; the 14 days leave already paid covered entitlements
The claims spanned 2005 to 2014, outside the annual contract period, and lacked proper computation. For the contract period, the claimant had Sundays off, no basis was shown for public holiday work, and payment for 14 days leave covered the 21 days earned over 8 months under section 28.
Legal principles established
#- A fixed term contract must end on its terms as agreed by the parties
- Section 44 must be read with section 41(2) of the Employment Act; the employee must be given a hearing and notice even for gross misconduct
- Absence of a criminal charge does not excuse gross misconduct in employment; disciplinary and criminal proceedings differ
- Under section 10(7) of the Employment Act, failure by the employer to produce work records means the employee's claims under the contract are taken as stated
Court orders
#- 1.The claims for unfair termination of employment must fail
- 2.Each party to pay own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- William Muhando Munda v Inter Security Services Limited [2022] KEELRC 611 (KLR)[2022] KEELRC 611 (KLR)10 Feb 2022applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "William Anyka Amboye v Jaykay Enterprises Ltd [2018] KEELRC 2589 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 238 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2589/eng@2018-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.