Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2019] KEELRC 2132 (KLR)

Philip Njuguna v Medical Relief International (Merlin) [2019] KEELRC 2132 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 February 2019
NMNzioki wa MakauRSRadido Stephen
2,253 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a finance manager's claim, confirming employers can lawfully dismiss for policy breaches if they hold a fair hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, formerly a Finance Compliance Manager with the Respondent in the Nyanza region, sued for unlawful summary dismissal effected on 20th September 2011 following an audit of the Kisii office that revealed procurement irregularities and weak financial controls. He complained that he was suspended without basis, denied the audit report, given only 24 hours' notice of the disciplinary hearing, and that the dismissal contravened Sections 41 and 44 of the Employment Act. He sought general and exemplary damages, compensation of Kshs. 3,474,303/-, interest and costs. The Respondent maintained that the dismissal was procedurally fair, grounded on the fixed-term contract's provision permitting termination without notice for deliberate breach of policies. The Respondent's witness testified about the induction and job description, and conceded that the Claimant's superior was dismissed at the same time and that no specific clause was referenced in the dismissal letter. Only the Respondent filed submissions, relying on authorities on the range of reasonable responses test, burden of proof and the Section 49 cap on compensation. The court held that a hearing preceded the dismissal, the Claimant did not seek a deferral, and the employer genuinely held a valid reason – failure to adhere to procedures. It further held that general and exemplary damages are unavailable for unlawful dismissal, compensation being governed by the Section 49 cap of 12 months' salary. The suit was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the reason for dismissal

Holding

The employer had a valid reason – the Claimant's failure to adhere to the Respondent's procedures

Reasoning

The dismissal letter set out the reason, following an audit that revealed non-compliance with procurement regulations, inflated payments and weak internal controls. The Claimant admitted on cross-examination that he was bound by the manual. Under Section 43(2), the reason assessed is what the employer genuinely believed existed at termination, which was satisfied here.

p. 2
02

Procedural fairness under Section 41

Holding

The procedure was fair; the Claimant was notified, given a show cause letter and heard by a panel, and did not seek a deferral of the hearing

Reasoning

The Claimant was notified on 8th September 2011 of a hearing on 9th September 2011, attended it, and did not request an adjournment despite claiming discomfort. He was heard by a panel which deliberated before dismissing him. His complaint about non-availment of the audit report did not render the process unfair in these circumstances.

p. 2
03

Whether general and exemplary damages lie for unlawful dismissal

Holding

They do not; compensation is exclusively under Section 49 of the Employment Act, capped at 12 months' salary save in exceptional consolidated awards

Reasoning

Relying on Abraham Gumba v Kenya Medical Supplies Authority, the court held that judicial restraint must be exercised in exceeding the 12-month cap and that exemplary or punitive awards are not intended in employment cases, absent constitutional, contractual and statutory violations coalescing into one award.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • General and exemplary damages are not awardable for unlawful dismissal; compensation is governed by Section 49 of the Employment Act
  • A dismissal preceded by a hearing and founded on a valid reason satisfies Section 41 and is not arbitrary

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the Claimant's suit
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 43
  • Employment ActSection 43(2)
  • Employment ActSection 44
  • Employment ActSection 47(5)
  • Employment ActSection 49
  • Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010

Cases cited (10)

  • Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Nazareno Kariuki v Feed The Children Kenya
    [2013] eKLR
  • Anthony Mkala Chitavi v Malindi Water & Sewerage Company Ltd
    [2013] eKLR
  • Kennedy Maina Mirera v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited
    [2018] eKLR
  • Daniel Otieno Migore v South Nyanza Sugar Co. Ltd
    [2018] eKLR
  • Raila Amolo Odinga & Another v IEBC & 2 Others
    [2017] eKLR
  • CMC Aviation Limited v Mohammed Noor
    [2015] eKLR
  • Abraham Gumba v Kenya Medical Supplies Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Mary Mutanu Mwendwa v Ayuda Ninos De Africa-Kenya Anidan K
    [2013] eKLR
  • Godfrey Julius Ndumba Mbogori & Another v Nairobi City County
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
First-instance employment claim under the Employment Act, Sections 41, 43, 44, 47(5) and 49

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, "Philip Njuguna v Medical Relief International (Merlin) [2019] KEELRC 2132 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2132/eng@2019-02-22

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