Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 137 of 2016· [2019] KEELRC 1991 (KLR)

Peter Kegode v United Millers Ltd [2019] KEELRC 1991 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
14 February 2019
2,010 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed all claims, confirming employees who refuse lawful orders can be summarily dismissed if given a fair workplace hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant sued the respondent seeking overtime pay, public holiday pay, off-day pay, leave, severance pay, paternity leave pay and general damages for wrongful dismissal, largely relating to the period 2002 to 2007 when he worked for Palmac Limited before the respondent acquired that company. The respondent defended the claim, contending the claimant was a casual employee from 2007 whose employment was regularised, and that his summary dismissal on 4th September 2015 followed his refusal on 23rd July 2015 to obey a lawful command to assemble for duty assignment at the loading section. The court found, on the unchallenged Certificate of Service, that the claimant was employed by the respondent from February 2008, so claims premised on the 2002 to 2007 period failed and were in any event time-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act. On the dismissal, the court held that refusal of a lawful command is gross misconduct under section 44(4)(e) justifying summary dismissal, and that the claimant was accorded the hearing required by section 41(2), shop-floor hearings not being criminal trials, applying Asere v Brookside Dairy and Musamali v G4S. The paternity leave claim failed because the claimant never applied, gave no notice and produced no birth certificates; severance pay under section 40 was inapplicable to summary dismissal; and general damages for wrongful dismissal were not available. The entire claim was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Employment period with the respondent

Holding

The Certificate of Service confirmed the claimant was employed by the respondent from February 2008, not from 2002

Reasoning

The claimant's Certificate of Service dated 4th September 2015 was annexed to the Memorandum of Claim and was not challenged, while no alternative letters of appointment were produced by the employer. The record was supported by the averments that the claimant worked for Palmac Limited until 2007 when the respondent acquired its assets and liabilities including the claimant as an employee.

p. 2
02

Justification of summary dismissal

Holding

The summary dismissal was justified as the claimant refused a lawful command and was accorded a hearing as required by sections 41(2) and 44 of the Employment Act

Reasoning

Section 44(4)(e) permits summary dismissal where an employee knowingly refuses a lawful and proper command. The employer must give a hearing under section 41(2), but a shop-floor hearing is not a criminal trial. The claimant was notified of the gross misconduct, heard before the workers committee and staff, and found to have disobeyed lawful instructions, satisfying the legal duty.

p. 3
03

Paternity leave entitlement

Holding

The claim for paternity leave pay failed for lack of application, notice and evidence of birth

Reasoning

Under section 29(8) of the Employment Act a male employee is entitled to two weeks paternity leave with full pay, but the right matures only upon application, written notice to the employer within a reasonable time and supporting evidence such as a birth certificate. The claimant never applied, never notified the employer and produced no certificate of birth for any child.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Internal disciplinary proceedings are not akin to criminal trials; an employee need only be given a reasonable hearing on the shop floor
  • Paternity leave under section 29(8) of the Employment Act is due only upon application, notice and supporting evidence such as a birth certificate

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claims made are dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007section 44(3), 44(4)(e)
  • Employment Act, 2007section 41(2)
  • Employment Act, 2007section 90
  • Employment Act, 2007section 29(8)
  • Employment Act, 2007section 40

Cases cited (4)

  • Joseph Onyango Asere versus Brookside Dairy Limited
    [2016] eKLR
  • George Musamali versus G4S Security Services Kenya Ltd
    [2016] eKLR
  • E.Torgbor versus Ladislaus Odongo Ojuok
    [2015] eKLR
  • Enock Maranga versus B.O.G. Cheptoroi Secondary School
    Cause No. 500 of 2014
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007

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, "Peter Kegode v United Millers Ltd [2019] KEELRC 1991 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No. 137 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1991/eng@2019-02-14

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