Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment text provided· [2019] KEELRC 2245 (KLR)

Francis Aswani Bwana v Kenya Airfreight Handling Limited [2019] KEELRC 2245 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court (originally filed in the High Court of Kenya, later transferred)
13 February 2019
1,495 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled a security officer's dismissal over stolen cargo was lawful because he skipped mandatory procedure, and employees cannot claim salaries for years they never worked.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a security officer with the Respondent airline, sued for unpaid dues and damages following the termination of his employment on 25th January 2000. The termination followed the theft of precious metals destined for Amsterdam in December 1999, for which the Claimant was arrested but later exonerated and used as a prosecution witness. He sought leave allowance, salary for days worked, notice, service pay, payment until retirement at 60, staff welfare, ESOP shares and general damages for unlawful dismissal. The Respondent defended the termination as lawful under Section 17(c) of the repealed Employment Act, Cap 226, asserting the Claimant was negligent in handling the cargo. It contended the summary dismissal was reduced on appeal to normal termination, upon which the Claimant received all his dues unconditionally. The court found the Claimant negligent: he dispatched the unsealed precious cargo to the hold without obtaining the required signature, contrary to procedure affirmed by both the Claimant's witness and the Respondent's General Manager. Regardless of pressure not to delay the KLM flight, he was obliged as security officer to ensure protocol was followed; the failure allowed the theft. The dismissal was therefore for a valid reason. Adopting Rika J's holding in D.K. Njagi Marete v Teachers Service Commission, the court held the claim for anticipatory salaries to retirement misplaced. The suit was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs. Judgment dated 6th February 2019 by Nzioki wa Makau J and delivered at Nairobi on 13th February 2019 by Radido Stephen J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the reason for dismissal

Holding

The Claimant was dismissed for a valid reason - negligence in handling the precious cargo, which led to its theft.

Reasoning

The Claimant admitted he could dispatch cargo and sign for it later, contrary to the procedure described by his own witness and the Respondent's witness that the cargo must be signed for when moved from the safe to the aircraft. The failure to follow procedure allowed the thieves to steal the unsealed gold from the cargo hold. As security officer he was obliged to ensure protocol was followed regardless of pressure not to delay the flight. His conduct was carelessness, if not criminal.

p. 2
02

Entitlement to dues and future salaries

Holding

The Claimant received his dues upon reduction of the summary dismissal to normal termination; future salaries to retirement are not claimable.

Reasoning

The Claimant testified he received around Kshs. 800,000 upon dismissal and the Respondent submitted he received Kshs. 844,171 unconditionally. The court agreed with Rika J in D.K. Njagi Marete that anticipatory salaries up to retirement would not be a fair and reasonable remedy, and added nothing further. The suit was therefore devoid of merit and dismissed with no order as to costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer terminates an employee's services for a valid reason where the employee's negligence breaches mandatory cargo-handling procedure, even where the employee claims pressure not to delay a flight.
  • A claim for future salaries/anticipatory salaries up to mandatory retirement age is not a fair and reasonable remedy for termination.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, Cap 226 (now repealed)Section 17(c)

Cases cited (7)

  • Mary Wakhabubi Wafula v British Airways PLC
    [2015] eKLR
  • CMC Aviation Limited v Mohammed Noor
    [2015] eKLR
  • Moses Kaunda Moro v C.M.C Motors Group Ltd
    [2013] eKLR
  • Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission
    [2013] eKLR
  • Mary Chemweno Kiptui v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenya Revenue Authority v Menginya Salim Murgani
    [2010] eKLR
  • D.K. Njagi Marete v Teachers Service Commission
    [2013] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction; suit transferred from the High Court of Kenya to this court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Francis Aswani Bwana v Kenya Airfreight Handling Limited [2019] KEELRC 2245 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2245/eng@2019-02-13

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