Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No. 188 of 2017· [2019] KEELRC 568 (KLR)

Jacob Ronoh Lagatt v Board of Management Kagaki School [2019] KEELRC 568 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
26 September 2019
MMM. Mbaru
3,133 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan driver won part of his claim against a school but lost the unfair termination case because he never answered his employer's show cause letter.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed as a driver at Kagaki School, sued the respondent claiming notice pay, salary for December 2016, unpaid leave, underpayments, overtime, off days, public holiday pay and compensation for unfair termination following disciplinary proceedings in January 2017. The respondent denied the claims, asserting employment began only in 2008 when it acquired a bus, that the claimant worked limited hours, was paid for extra duties in cash, and abandoned work after being issued a show cause notice. The court held that employment commenced on the claimant's re-appointment as Head of Transport with effect from 1st January 2012, and that claims predating that date fell away. It found the respondent produced no evidence of the alleged change from a partnership to a company or of payment of two months' notice pay, and therefore the balance of December 2016 salary of Ksh.9,000.00 was due. The letter of appointment did not specify working hours, and since the claimant was at the respondent's disposal from 5.30am to 7pm, overtime of four hours daily was awarded, computed at Ksh.40,514.00 under the applicable wage orders. Claims for leave, weekends, public holidays and underpayments failed because the school closed three months yearly, extra duties were paid in cash, and the payment statements showed no underpayment. On fairness, the court held a show cause notice is not a termination; the claimant, having responded with allegations of injustice rather than answering the accusations and not returning to work, was not entitled to notice pay or compensation. The court awarded pay for January 2017, overtime, the December 2016 balance and a certificate of service, with each party bearing own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Commencement date of employment

Holding

Employment commenced on re-appointment as Head of Transport effective 1st January 2012

Reasoning

There were no employment records save for payment statements and the letter of re-appointment dated 3rd January 2012. The court treated the re-appointment as the commencement of new employment, cutting off claims predating that date despite reliance on section 90 of the Employment Act.

p. 3
02

Overtime entitlement

Holding

Overtime of about 4 hours daily awarded for the period from January 2012

Reasoning

The letter of appointment did not spell out work hours. The claimant was at the respondent's disposal from 5.30am to 7pm and worked 4 hours over the permissible hours each day. The court computed overtime under applicable wage orders to Ksh.40,514.00.

p. 4
03

Fairness of termination process

Holding

No unfair termination found; claimant failed to respond to the show cause notice

Reasoning

The claimant was issued a show cause notice on allegations of insubordination, colluding to hike spare parts prices, diverting fuel and arrogance, but responded with a letter about injustice and unfairness without answering the allegations, and did not return to work.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A show cause notice is not a termination of employment but an opportunity for the employee to respond
  • The employer bears the burden of spelling out work terms to the employee in a language the employee understands

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Payment of pay for January, 2017 at Ksh.19,110.00
  2. 2.Payment of overtime pay awarded at Ksh.40,514.00
  3. 3.Payment of balance of wage for December, 2016 at Ksh.9,000.00
  4. 4.The claimant shall be issued with a certificate of service for the period worked and ending 30th January, 2017
  5. 5.The dues paid to the claimant shall be subject to the provisions of section 49(2) of the Employment Act, 2007
  6. 6.Each party shall bear own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 90
  • Employment Actsection 10
  • Employment Actsection 49(2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Paul Ooko Okoth versus Chemilil Sugar Co. Ltd
    [2016] eKLR
  • Grace Gacheru Muriithi versus Kenya Literature Bureau
    (2012) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jacob Ronoh Lagatt v Board of Management Kagaki School [2019] KEELRC 568 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No. 188 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/568/eng@2019-09-26

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