Mark Mugavi Okani v Eveready Security Guards [2019] KEELRC 696 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a security guard's dismissal while on remand was unfair, awarding him damages because his employer skipped legally required procedures.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Unfair termination of employment
Unlawful termination found; Respondent did not comply with sections 35(1)(c), 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
The Respondent relied on lawful custody beyond 14 days as ground for summary dismissal, but section 44(4)(f) is subject to section 41(2). The Respondent knew where the Claimant was, took no formal decision to terminate or treat the contract as frustrated, and led no evidence on sections 43 and 45. The Claimant still considered himself employed and reported for work on release.
Compensation for unfair termination
Equivalent of 4 months' salary awarded (Kshs 52,000/-)
The Claimant served about 3 years and his gross monthly salary on separation was Kshs 13,000/-. The Court considered these factors in fixing compensation at the equivalent of 4 months' salary, amounting to Kshs 52,000/-.
Damages for failure to issue a written contract
Kshs 75,000/- awarded as the failure constituted an unfair labour practice
The Claimant served more than 3 months, so section 10(1) & (2) required a written contract. Though failure to issue one does not void the contract, it may attract quasi-criminal sanctions under section 16. The Court held damages were warranted to deter this prevalent unfair labour practice and fixed them at Kshs 75,000/-.
Legal principles established
#- Section 44(4)(f) of the Employment Act is subject to the requirements of section 41(2) of the Act
- An employee on remand/release remains entitled to procedural fairness before the contract can be terminated
- Earned wages are payable as of right
- Failure to issue a written contract where statutory conditions exist is an unfair labour practice attracting damages
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the services of the Claimant were unfairly terminated and that the Respondent was in breach of contract
- 2.Award of compensation of Kshs 52,000/- for unfair termination
- 3.Award of Kshs 13,000/- being September 2012 wages
- 4.Award of Kshs 75,000/- damages for failure to issue a written contract (total award Kshs 140,000/-)
- 5.Respondent to issue certificate of service and release any documents of the Claimant in its possession within 15 days
- 6.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (first-instance employment cause)
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.
- Achieng v Agimba & another (Cause E180 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 540 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 540 (KLR)27 Feb 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mark Mugavi Okani v Eveready Security Guards [2019] KEELRC 696 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment (Cause heard on 8 July 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/696/eng@2019-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.