Wilfred Olooko Muroka v Nzoia Sugar Company Ltd [2019] KEELRC 770 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed an employee's unfair termination claim because he could not prove his dismissal was unfair or that he had been reinstated.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was for a valid reason and followed a fair procedure
The Respondent had a valid reason (dereliction of duty in procurement) and gave the Claimant an opportunity to be heard in writing and at two disciplinary hearings
The Claimant received a show cause letter dated 14.1.2005, replied to it, and attended two disciplinary hearings in July 2005 where he defended himself. The disciplinary committee was not satisfied with his explanation and recommended termination. The court found the Respondent demonstrated a valid reason and procedural fairness, even though the Claimant was on study leave.
Whether the Claimant was reinstated by the company secretary in 2008
The Claimant failed to prove reinstatement; the 2008 intervention only resulted in payment of part training expenses
Although the Claimant testified that Mr. Wasilwa reinstated him by a letter dated 4.9.2008 and that management ratified the reinstatement, under cross-examination he admitted he never received a letter reinstating him and never returned to work. The payment of Kshs 124,342 was found to cater for sponsorship up to the date of termination, not to evidence continued employment.
Burden of proof applicable to the claim of unfair termination
The Claimant bore the burden of proving wrongful and unfair termination on a balance of probabilities, with the Respondent bearing only the burden of rebuttal under the law before the Employment Act 2007
The termination occurred in 2005, before enactment of the Employment Act 2007, so the statutory reverse burden under that Act did not apply. Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act placed the onus on the Claimant, who failed to discharge it on the evidence.
Legal principles established
#- An employee bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that termination of employment was wrongful and unfair, and this applied even before the Employment Act 2007
- An employer retains disciplinary authority over an employee who is away on study leave
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the claim that the termination of employment was unlawful and unfair
- 2.Dismissal of the claims for compensation for disruption of study leave, compensation for lost years of work and any other claim for payment of salary after the date of termination
- 3.Dismissal of the claim for payment in lieu of leave days
- 4.Dismissal of the claim for further terminal benefits over and above Kshs 208,446.95
- 5.Dismissal of the entire suit
- 6.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (matter determined under pre-2007 law; Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act applied)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wilfred Olooko Muroka v Nzoia Sugar Company Ltd [2019] KEELRC 770 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/770/eng@2019-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.