Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 1612 of 2013· [2019] KEELRC 1948 (KLR)

Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union v HR Strategic Partners Limited [2019] KEELRC 1948 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
1 March 2019
ANAbuodha Jorum Nelson
1,245 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed employers can dismiss workers for serious misconduct like sleeping on duty without holding a formal, minutes-recorded disciplinary hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant union sued on behalf of three grievants employed by the respondent as machine attendant and fleshers, alleging unfair termination. The first grievant, Stephen Mbugua, was terminated on 11 November 2011 after being absent sick; the second, Bensons Asembo, and third, George Juma, were dismissed in October 2011 for allegedly sleeping during the second shift on or near the drying machine. The grievants claimed they were never issued show cause letters, no disciplinary hearing was held, and their terminal dues were unpaid. The respondent maintained the grievants were seasonal labourers paid daily or fortnightly, that warnings - verbal and written - preceded the dismissals, that the grievants wrote statements or apologies admitting the misconduct, and that leave was taken during the annual August shutdown of the Bata Shoe Company factory. The respondent's Finance and Administration Manager testified that the first grievant refused to have his medical sheet filled, and the second and third were found asleep on the drying machine, a safety hazard. In oral evidence the grievants admitted the underlying facts - absence from work, sleeping in the workroom and on top of the drying machine - and that they wrote apology letters. The court held the infractions constituted justifiable reasons for termination. On procedure, it held the Employment Act does not require a formal hearing with recorded minutes; an oral hearing or written explanation suffices where the employee is aware of the accusations and responds. Finding valid reasons and sufficient procedure, the court dismissed the claim with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of reasons for termination

Holding

Sleeping on duty near a drying machine and absenteeism without leave were justifiable reasons for termination

Reasoning

The reasons for termination are those the employer genuinely believed to exist. The second and third grievants admitted sleeping in the workroom, one on top of the drying machine; the first did not deny absence and admitted he should have reported illness to the foreman. All three wrote apology letters, and the court found the infractions justified termination of the contracts of service.

p. 2
02

Procedural fairness before dismissal

Holding

The procedure followed, including written explanations and apology letters, was sufficient; a formal hearing with minutes is not required by the Employment Act

Reasoning

The court held the Employment Act does not require a formal hearing with recorded minutes before dismissal. Depending on how the parties conducted their employment relationship, an oral hearing or a written explanation for the accusations may pass for a hearing provided the employee is fully aware of the accusations and responds. Here the grievants responded and later admitted the acts in court.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A formal disciplinary hearing with recorded minutes is not mandatory; an oral hearing or written explanation may suffice if the employee is aware of the accusations and responds

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actunspecified (procedure for termination)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (employment dispute under the Employment Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union v HR Strategic Partners Limited [2019] KEELRC 1948 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No 1612 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1948/eng@2019-03-01

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