Fred Onywoki Nyauntu v Mega Park (K) Limited [2019] KEELRC 213 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld an employee's summary dismissal because the employer followed the required disciplinary steps and had clear workplace rules against phone use.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness in summary dismissal under sections 44 and 41 of the Employment Act
The dismissal followed due process under section 44 read with section 41(2); the employee was given a show cause notice, responded to it, and attended a disciplinary hearing with the chief shop steward present.
The court found that the claimant was found using a phone on the shop floor contrary to workplace policy, was issued a show cause notice, responded to it, and was invited to a disciplinary hearing at which the chief shop steward was present. The court held that in all proceedings relating to the claimant, the trade union and chief shop steward were involved, satisfying the procedural safeguards of section 41 even in a case of summary dismissal under section 44.
Whether there were justifiable grounds for summary dismissal
There were genuine and justifiable grounds: the claimant was found chatting on the phone and sitting idle contrary to a workplace policy posted on notices across the shop floor.
The court accepted the respondent's evidence, including that of the human resource manager and fellow employees, that the claimant was found using and chatting on a phone while idling at work, contrary to a policy prohibiting cell phone use at work that was posted across the shop floor. The claimant's responses to the show cause notice were found unsatisfactory, warranting summary dismissal for gross misconduct.
Entitlement to terminal dues
The claimant's terminal dues, including pay for days worked, leave days not taken and overtime, were paid through his bank account; hence no notice pay or compensation is due.
The human resource manager testified that upon dismissal the claimant's terminal dues were deposited into his bank account, comprising pay for days worked up to 7th June 2016, leave days not taken and overtime earned, less Sacco deductions and statutory deductions. The court accepted this evidence and therefore found no compensation or notice pay payable.
Legal principles established
#- Whatever the reason for termination, an employee must be taken through the mandatory process under section 41 of the Employment Act, including a hearing with a representative of choice; even in cases of summary dismissal under section 44 the employee must be accorded a fair hearing
- Where an employee is given a show cause notice, responds to it, and attends a disciplinary hearing with a union representative before summary dismissal for gross misconduct, the dismissal follows due process and is justified
Court orders
#- 1.The claims made are found without merit and dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment claims (Employment Act, 2007; sections 41 and 44)
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.
- Muchiri v Netco Management Limited (Cause 233 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 1204 (KLR)[2022] KEELRC 1204 (KLR)27 May 2022
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Fred Onywoki Nyauntu v Mega Park (K) Limited [2019] KEELRC 213 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No. 378 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/213/eng@2019-11-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.