Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedCause 494 of 2015· [2019] KEELRC 1366 (KLR)

Christine Kinya Gikunda v Mantrac Limited [2019] KEELRC 1366 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
14 June 2019
ANAbuodha J. N.
1,700 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded an employee six months' salary after her boss investigated, heard and fired her—proving one person cannot run the whole disciplinary process.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent from 3rd June 2002, initially as Human Resource Manager and later designated Human Resource Administrator/Officer, alleged that her employment was unilaterally terminated on 17th April 2014 without notice or legitimate cause, and that the respondent wrongly informed her bank that she was redundant. The respondent maintained she was never a Human Resource Manager, that she had persistent performance issues including payroll errors, late HELB remittances and insubordination, that she was placed on a performance improvement programme, issued a first warning on 14th October 2013 and a final warning on 28th February 2014, and invited to a disciplinary hearing on 17th April 2014 which she allegedly did not attend. The respondent conceded the claimant was never declared redundant. The court, reviewing the pleadings and testimony, discerned a deeply strained relationship between the claimant and the respondent's HR Manager, Mr John Kiiru, who identified the claimant as his target for streamlining, summoned her to a disciplinary hearing, purportedly convened one in her office when she refused to attend, and handed her the termination letter. Allegations of bullying were unsupported by any witness other than Mr Kiiru, and no written complaints were produced. The court held that although valid reasons may have existed, the manner of handling the disciplinary issue was unfair, and that the termination was unfair and for unjustifiable reasons. It awarded the claimant six months' salary of Kshs 1,200,000 as compensation, with interest from the date of judgment subject to taxes and statutory deductions, plus costs of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was fair and justified

Holding

The court found the termination unfair and for unjustifiable reasons, and awarded six months' salary as compensation.

Reasoning

The court discerned a strained relationship between the claimant and the HR Manager who investigated, heard and terminated her. Allegations of bullying lacked supporting evidence from the alleged victims, no written complaints were produced, and the HR Manager both summoned the claimant for the disciplinary hearing and handed her the termination letter, making the process unfair.

p. 2
02

Whether the respondent proved the alleged misconduct and poor performance

Holding

The court held that the accusations were not substantiated by evidence from any source other than the HR Manager.

Reasoning

The claimant was accused of bullying junior staff, yet none of them testified and no written complaints were placed on record. The respondent claimed payroll errors and insubordination, but the only witness was the HR Manager who had an admittedly frosty relationship with the claimant and who presided over the entire disciplinary process.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the relationship between an employee and the officer handling the disciplinary process is strained, fairness requires that the disciplinary issue be handled by someone other than that officer.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Award of six months' salary, being Kshs 1,200,000, as compensation for unfair termination of service
  2. 2.Interest on the award at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full, subject to taxes and statutory deductions
  3. 3.Claimant to have costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over a claim for unfair termination of employment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Christine Kinya Gikunda v Mantrac Limited [2019] KEELRC 1366 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause 494 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1366/eng@2019-06-14

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