Patrick Kamunya Wambui v Wananchi Sacco Society Limited [2019] KEELRC 2174 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a SACCO employee's dismissal because he was heard before being fired, but rejected his multi-million shilling claim for salaries to retirement age.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was wrongful and procedurally fair
The dismissal was lawful and procedurally fair as the Claimant responded to the allegations in writing and was heard by the board before dismissal
The Claimant was suspended over irregular coffee loans at Gakindu branch, replied to the Respondent's letters of 6th and 14th September 2016, and was heard by the board before dismissal. The dismissal letter acknowledged that he defended himself and even appealed. Section 41 of the Employment Act requires an explanation and a hearing, both of which occurred orally and in writing, so the dismissal accords with the statute.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to lost salary for the unexpired term to retirement
The relief of salaries to retirement age is not grantable
The Claimant sought salaries he would have earned for 16 years to retirement at 60. The court held this is not a remedy a court can give, citing D. K. Njagi Marete v Teachers Service Commission, and declined to grant it.
Whether the Claimant owes the Respondent loan dues (counterclaim)
Left to the parties to compute mutual liabilities, failing which the court would determine them from the documents
The Claimant admitted owing money on a loan while the Respondent claimed Kshs. 266,790.70. As both parties owed each other, the court directed them to agree on the liabilities within two weeks, failing which it would determine them based on the documents filed after mention.
Legal principles established
#- An employee is deemed to have been heard in accordance with section 41 of the Employment Act where the employee responded to allegations in writing and was heard orally before dismissal
- Courts will not grant compensation for salaries an employee would have earned until retirement age
Court orders
#- 1.The court granted the parties two weeks to determine the liabilities owed on either side, given that each party owed the other
- 2.If the parties are unable to agree, the court to give its determination based on the documents availed after a mention in two weeks
- 3.It is so ordered
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (specific provision not cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Patrick Kamunya Wambui v Wananchi Sacco Society Limited [2019] KEELRC 2174 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2174/eng@2019-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.