Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No 1061 of 2013· [2019] KEELRC 1981 (KLR)

Gideon Mogaka Atura v Postal Corporation of Kenya [2019] KEELRC 1981 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 March 2019
2,978 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled an employer can have a valid reason to fire you, but must still hold an oral hearing — skipping it makes the dismissal unfair and costly.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent since 1984 and last stationed at Kajiado Post Office as the officer in charge of the strong room, was suspended on 30 May 2011 after an impromptu inspection found a cash shortage, and was dismissed by letter dated 15 February 2012 on grounds of loss of confidence, with the dismissal backdated to 26 June 2011. He sued for reinstatement or, alternatively, salary to retirement, accrued dues and terminal benefits. The court framed two issues: whether the termination was unfair and unlawful, and whether the reliefs should be granted. On the evidence, including testimony of the respondent's Assistant Manager Security who supervised the breaking open of the strong room safe in the presence of police, the court found the employer proved a valid and fair reason for dismissal - the claimant had removed the money from the strong room safe and absented himself, betraying a position of trust. However, the employer failed to follow the mandatory procedure in section 41 of the Employment Act: the claimant was never accorded an oral hearing before a disciplinary committee, only a written show-cause exchange, rendering the dismissal procedurally unfair. Reinstatement was barred as more than three years had elapsed since separation under section 12(3)(vii) of the ELRC Act. The court awarded one month's notice pay, six months' compensation for unfair termination (weighing 28 years of service against the claimant's contributory misconduct), salary for the 5½ months of suspension (holding the backdating an unfair labour practice), accrued leave, a certificate of service, costs and interest. The total award of Kshs.397,574.50 is subject to statutory deductions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the employer proved a valid and fair reason for dismissal

Holding

Yes - the claimant, entrusted with custody of the strong room and its monies, removed the money and absented himself, betraying the employer's trust

Reasoning

The claimant admitted being in charge of the strong room and admitted a cash shortage of about Kshs.120,000. The defence witness credibly described the breaking open of the strong room safe in the presence of police and the Postmaster, and the finding of only Kshs.26,284 against an expected Kshs.146,580.45. On a preponderance of evidence, the conduct of removing the money and staying away justified dismissal for loss of trust under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.

p. 3
02

Whether a fair procedure was followed before dismissal

Holding

No - the claimant was never accorded the oral hearing mandated by section 41 of the Employment Act, rendering the dismissal unfair and unlawful

Reasoning

The dismissal letter showed the Postmaster General approved dismissal based only on the show-cause letter and the claimant's written reply. The defence witness admitted the respondent had a Disciplinary Committee for hearing employee cases. Section 41 requires the employer to explain the reasons and hear the employee's representations orally in the presence of another employee or union official. Failure to do so rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair regardless of whether the outcome would have differed.

p. 4
03

What reliefs flow from a procedurally unfair termination

Holding

Reinstatement refused as out of time; damages under section 49(1) awarded (notice pay plus compensation), plus suspension-period salary arrears, accrued leave and a certificate of service

Reasoning

More than three years had elapsed since separation, barring reinstatement under section 12(3)(vii) of the ELRC Act. The court awarded one month's notice and six months' compensation, factoring in the claimant's 28 years of service but also his contributory misconduct. It also awarded salary for the 5½ months of suspension, holding that backdating the dismissal to June 2011 was an unfair labour practice, and awarded accrued leave which the employer failed to disprove with leave records.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Termination is unfair if the employer fails to prove both valid and fair reasons and a fair procedure, including an oral hearing under section 41 of the Employment Act
  • A written show-cause response without an oral hearing before a disciplinary committee does not satisfy section 41 of the Employment Act
  • Backdating the effective date of dismissal while the employee remains bound by the contract is an unfair labour practice
  • The employer is custodian of employment records and bears the consequences of failing to disprove accrued leave claims by producing leave records

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the claimant: Notice Kshs.30,530.00
  2. 2.Compensation for unfair termination Kshs.183,180.00
  3. 3.Salary arrears (5½ months suspension pay) Kshs.167,915.00
  4. 4.Leave Kshs.15,949.60
  5. 5.Total award of Kshs.397,574.50 subject to statutory deductions
  6. 6.Claimant to be issued with a certificate of service
  7. 7.Costs of the claim to the claimant plus interest at court rates from the date of judgment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsections 36, 41, 43, 45(2), 49(1), 74
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (ELRC Act)section 12(3)(vii)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the ELRC Act, section 12(3)(vii) invoked on the reinstatement bar

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gideon Mogaka Atura v Postal Corporation of Kenya [2019] KEELRC 1981 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No 1061 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1981/eng@2019-03-22

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