Julia Cooper Rust v Academy of Dance & Arts [2019] KEELRC 1462 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that even when an employee causes their own dismissal, employers must still follow fair termination procedures—though serious employee misconduct can eliminate any compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of summary dismissal
Dismissal was procedurally unfair as no prior notice or hearing was given under section 41, but the defect was excusable given prior meetings, emails and mediation initiatives
The respondent dismissed the claimant by email without prior notice or a hearing, contrary to section 41 of the Employment Act. However, the parties had held meetings, exchanged emails and engaged in mediation about the claimant's misconduct before dismissal, so the omission to serve notice, even a shorter one, was excusable. The court drew on Jared Aimba v Fina Bank and Shankar Saklani v DHL.
Validity of reasons for termination
Reasons of using respondent's facilities and students to promote a rival dance school, and rudeness to management, were substantially valid; allegation of shouting at students failed
Evidence showed the claimant had registered and promoted Dance Centre Limited while employed by the respondent and misled the court about the registration date, using the respondent's letterhead and premises to advance a rival venture. Rudeness was established through emails ridiculing the director. The allegation of shouting at and terrifying students was contradicted by student letters and was not established.
Compensation under section 49
No compensation awarded because the claimant contributed 100% to her dismissal and had served only about 7 months
The court considered section 49 factors: short service of about 7 months, the claimant's full contribution to the termination, and the respondent's mitigation efforts through meetings and mediation. Despite the procedural defect, no compensation was warranted. The respondent was entitled to treat the misconduct as gross misconduct justifying shorter notice.
Counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty
Counterclaim failed: loss not pleaded or strictly proved, no submissions on quantum, and it was an abuse of process duplicating a prior suit
The alleged loss was liquidated but unquantified and unpleaded; the accountant conceded there was no documentation that students left for Dance Centre Kenya and no audit reports were filed. Applying the rule that special damages must be pleaded and strictly proved, the counterclaim failed. It also duplicated Civil Suit No. 1026 of 2015 pending in the Chief Magistrate's Court, amounting to abuse of process.
Legal principles established
#- Termination for a valid reason or on grounds of misconduct must be accompanied by a fair process including notification of grounds and a hearing prior to termination
- Notice and a hearing are mandatory even in cases of summary dismissal, though the notice may be shorter than that prescribed by statute or contract
- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved
- A plaintiff is under a duty to present evidence to prove his claim
Court orders
#- 1.Each party to bear own costs of the proceedings
- 2.The respondent to deliver to the claimant a certificate of service by 01.07.2019 and as per section 51 of the Employment Act, 2007
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations dispute under the Employment Act, 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Julia Cooper Rust v Academy of Dance & Arts [2019] KEELRC 1462 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1462/eng@2019-05-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.