Charles Ngigi Muiruri v Josiah Ngigi Macharia, Chairman Board of Governors/Executive Committee Sabasaba Secondary School & another [2019] KEELRC 1073 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a teacher's claims for unfair dismissal and defamation because he had admitted losing the school's property.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was unlawfully terminated
The termination was lawful. The Claimant admitted the loss of the 16 stopwatches in two letters, giving the Respondent reason to terminate, and a hearing before the Board of Governors took place.
Under the then-applicable Employment Act, Cap 226 (1976), an employer could terminate at will and was not obliged to give reasons or conduct a disciplinary hearing. Here the Claimant had admitted in two undisputed letters that he lost the stopwatches and offered to pay, giving the employer reason to terminate. Further, the Board of Governors met and deliberated before resolving to terminate, so some form of hearing occurred and the termination was not irregular.
Whether the defamation claim was established
The defamation claim failed; the alleged publication was not proved and the claim was statute-barred.
To succeed in defamation, the claimant must prove a defamatory statement referring to him and published by the defendant. The Claimant alleged the Headmaster published the circumstances of his termination at a P.T.A meeting, but this publication was not proved. Moreover, because the Claimant had admitted losing the items, the reason for termination was true and therefore justified. The claim was also filed more than 12 months after the alleged defamation and was thus statute-barred.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to terminal dues
No. The termination letter showed salaries for May to July 1995 and two months' notice pay were to be paid, and the service benefits claimed were too unclear to compute.
The letter of termination dated 14th July 1995 expressly stated that the Board would pay salaries for May, June and July up to 14th July 1995, would give two months' salary in lieu of notice, and would recover the lost property from those benefits. On the face of that letter the salary and notice pay claims were covered. The service benefits claimed were not clearly pleaded or proved, leaving the Court unable to compute any award.
Legal principles established
#- Under the repealed Employment Act, Cap 226 (1976), an employer could terminate employment for good cause, bad cause or no cause at all, and was not obliged to give reasons or hear the employee before termination.
- The ingredients of the tort of defamation are that the statement must be defamatory, refer to the plaintiff, be published by the defendant and be false.
- Where the reason given for termination is true, a defamation claim founded on the publication of that reason fails.
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed with no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction over a claim for unlawful termination and defamation arising out of an employment relationship
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charles Ngigi Muiruri v Josiah Ngigi Macharia, Chairman Board of Governors/Executive Committee Sabasaba Secondary School & another [2019] KEELRC 1073 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No 1248 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1073/eng@2019-07-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.