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 AllowedELRC Cause (Nairobi), Statement of Claim dated 8th August 2014· [2019] KEELRC 1161 (KLR)

Thomas Mukoya v Metal Crowns Limited [2019] KEELRC 1161 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
5 July 2019
MOMaureen Onyango
2,401 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded a supervisor 10 months' salary because his employer sacked him for poor performance without a hearing or a chance to improve.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Thomas Mukoya sued Metal Crowns Limited in the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, alleging unlawful and wrongful termination of his employment as a Supervisor in the fabrication department. He pleaded that a scheme by the Respondent's director forced him out, that no written warnings, notice or disciplinary hearing preceded termination, and sought twelve months' notice pay, twelve months' compensation, leave, service pay, gratuity, settlement of a Barclays Bank loan of Kshs.1,520,276 with interest, salary arrears, severance pay, and revocation of the director's work permit. The Respondent admitted the employment but contended that termination was for poor performance after warnings, that notice, leave, service pay and gratuity were paid, and that it bore no obligation on the loan. Both sides filed written submissions. The court framed two issues: whether the termination was unlawful, and entitlement to reliefs. It found the Claimant demonstrated no disciplinary hearing was convened and the Respondent produced no investigation report or minutes; nor was he shown to have been warned of performance shortcomings or given an opportunity to improve. Termination was therefore unfair under Section 41 of the Employment Act. The court awarded ten months' salary (Kshs.563,750) as compensation under Section 49, considering nine years of service. The claims for recalculated gratuity and service pay, the loan and interest, and other prayers were dismissed as unproved. Judgment was entered for Kshs.563,750 with interest at court rates, and the Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant's costs. The judgment was delivered at Nairobi on 5th July 2019 by Maureen Onyango, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination was procedurally fair and substantively justified

Holding

The termination was unfair for want of procedural fairness under Section 41 of the Employment Act

Reasoning

The Claimant showed no disciplinary hearing was convened and no investigation report or minutes were produced to rebut this. The Respondent also failed to show the Claimant was informed of his performance shortcomings and given an opportunity to improve. The court adopted the authorities cited by the Claimant on hearing before discipline and poor-performance procedure.

p. 3
02

What compensation is due for the unfair termination

Holding

Compensation of 10 months' salary under Section 49 of the Employment Act, considering 9 years of service

Reasoning

Having found unfair termination, the court exercised discretion under Section 49, taking into account length of service (9 years) and all circumstances, including that the Claimant did not dispute receipt of notice, leave, service pay and gratuity. Twelve months were not awarded.

p. 3
03

Whether the Respondent was liable for the Claimant's bank loan

Holding

The Respondent was under no obligation to settle the loan

Reasoning

The Claimant benefited from the loan advanced by Barclays Bank against his payslip; the Respondent was not party to the loan agreement and its certification of the payslip created no obligation to service the loan after termination.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must follow the procedure under Section 41 of the Employment Act, including affording the employee a hearing, before termination; failure renders termination unfair
  • An employer must inform an employee of shortcomings in performance and give an opportunity to improve before terminating for poor performance

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant in the sum of Kshs.563,750 being 10 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination
  2. 2.All other prayers dismissed for not having been proved
  3. 3.Respondent to pay the Claimant's costs
  4. 4.Decretal sum to attract interest at court rates

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 41
  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 43
  • Employment ActSection 45
  • Employment ActSection 45(2)
  • Employment ActSection 47(5)
  • Employment ActSection 49
  • Employment ActSection 49(1)
  • ILO Convention 158of 1982
  • Immigration Act

Cases cited (5)

  • Benjamin Nyambati Ondiba v Egerton University
  • Kenya Scientific Research International Technical & Allied Workers Union (KSRITAWU) v Stanley Kinyanjui and Magnate Ventures Ltd
    Industrial Cause No. 273 of 2010
  • Simon Muguku Gichigi v Taifa Sacco Society Limited
    [2012] eKLR
  • USIU v Attorney General
    [2012] eKLR
  • Bramwel Airo Imbudila v Noble Conference Centre Limited
    [2016] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the ELRC under Article 162(2) of the Constitution, including jurisdiction to enforce the Bill of Rights in employment relationships as urged under USIU v Attorney General

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Thomas Mukoya v Metal Crowns Limited [2019] KEELRC 1161 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELRC Cause (Nairobi), Statement of Claim dated 8th August 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1161/eng@2019-07-05

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