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 AllowedCause No 553 of 2017· [2019] KEELRC 1829 (KLR)

Jackson Leparmarai v L.A.B International Kenya Limited [2019] KEELRC 1829 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 April 2019
LNLINNET NDOLO
1,487 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer that fires an employee without solid proof of wrongdoing and a genuinely fair hearing can owe up to 12 months' salary.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent as a Warehouse Supervisor from 15th April 1998 until 8th June 2017 at a monthly salary of Kshs. 89,000, sued for unlawful termination of employment and unpaid terminal dues. The dismissal followed the theft of five bags of tea valued at Kshs. 70,000 at Ufanisi Warehouse on 5th February 2017. The Claimant was first issued a show cause letter accusing him of involvement in the theft; after he responded that he was not on duty on the material day, the Respondent issued a second show cause letter alleging negligence, which simultaneously served as an invitation to a disciplinary hearing. Following the hearing on 5th May 2017, the termination letter dated 8th June 2017 cited gross misconduct without details. The Respondent's Senior Security Officer, John Wanyama Barasa, testified that the Claimant had attended the warehouse briefly and directed a colleague, Duncan, to dispose of tea sweepings. The Court found the Claimant was not present when the sweeping was done and that no evidence established any wrongdoing in his instruction to Duncan. The Court further held that by combining the show cause and hearing invitation in one letter, the Respondent had predetermined the outcome, rendering the disciplinary process a fait accompli. The termination was found substantively unjustified under Section 43 and procedurally unfair under Section 41 of the Employment Act. The Court awarded 12 months' salary in compensation (Kshs. 1,068,000) and one month's notice pay (Kshs. 89,000), with interest, a certificate of service and costs, but dismissed claims for June 2017 salary and leave pay as already settled.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination was lawful and fair

Holding

The termination was both substantively and procedurally unfair

Reasoning

The Claimant was first accused of theft of tea, then of negligence, but no evidence showed wrongdoing: he was not present during the sweeping and disposal and there was no proof he abdicated duty to Duncan. The Respondent failed the Section 43 reason test and the Section 41 procedural fairness test, having shown its hand too early by inviting the show cause response and the disciplinary hearing by the same letter.

p. 3
02

Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought

Holding

12 months' compensation and one month's notice pay awarded; leave and June 2017 salary claims dismissed as already paid

Reasoning

In fixing compensation at the maximum of 12 months' salary, the Court took into account the Claimant's 19 years of service and the Respondent's conduct in handling the disciplinary case. Claims for June 2017 salary and leave pay failed because the evidence showed they had been paid.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must both demonstrate a valid reason for termination under Section 43 of the Employment Act and satisfy the procedural fairness requirements of Section 41
  • Where an employer combines the show cause and disciplinary hearing invitation in one letter, the disciplinary process may be found to be a fait accompli and merely mechanical

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant for 12 months' salary in compensation of Kshs. 1,068,000 and 1 month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 89,000, totalling Kshs. 1,157,000
  2. 2.The amount to attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
  3. 3.Claimant entitled to a certificate of service
  4. 4.Claimant awarded costs of the case

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 43
  • Employment ActSection 41
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (first-instance employment claim)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jackson Leparmarai v L.A.B International Kenya Limited [2019] KEELRC 1829 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No 553 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1829/eng@2019-04-09

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