Jonah Musa Magambo v Kenya Airports Authority [2019] KEELRC 2153 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed employers cannot withhold severance pay because of pending criminal charges, though it refused damages for malicious prosecution.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was entitled to damages for malicious arrest and prosecution
The claim failed; the Respondent did not institute the prosecution, which was the product of independent police investigation
Applying the established elements of malicious prosecution from Murunga v Attorney General and Kagane & others v Attorney General, the court held that the Respondent merely lodged a complaint with the police. The police conducted independent investigations and made the decision to charge. There was no evidence the Respondent instituted the prosecution or influenced the decision to charge, so an essential element was missing.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to interest on the severance pay
Yes, at court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full
The court found no legal basis for the Respondent's withholding of severance pay due to pending criminal charges. Severance pay is a statutory right for employees declared redundant, and the Respondent's conduct was unjustifiable. Interest at court rates was awarded on the consented sum from the date of filing suit, to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar.
Who should bear the costs of the case
The Respondent to pay half the costs since the Claimant succeeded only in part
Because the claim succeeded only on the interest head and failed on damages, the court exercised its discretion to award the Claimant only half of the costs of the case rather than full costs.
Legal principles established
#- There is no legal basis for an employer to withhold severance pay on account of pending criminal proceedings against the employee; severance pay is a right to all employees leaving employment on the ground of redundancy
- An employer who merely lodges a complaint with police, which then independently investigates and decides to charge, is not liable for malicious prosecution
Court orders
#- 1.The claims for general and special damages for malicious arrest and prosecution are dismissed
- 2.The Claimant is awarded interest at court rates on the agreed sum of Kshs. 3,096,893.75 from the date of filing suit until payment in full
- 3.The Deputy Registrar to assess the interest payable within twenty-one (21) days from the date of the judgment, in the presence of both parties
- 4.The Respondent to pay the Claimant half of the costs incurred in the case
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment claims (severance pay on redundancy); not stated by specific provision in judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jonah Musa Magambo v Kenya Airports Authority [2019] KEELRC 2153 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No 440 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2153/eng@2019-02-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.