Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 68 of 2018· [2019] KEELRC 2269 (KLR)

Meshack Auta Ongeri v Nyamache Tea Factory Company Limited [2019] KEELRC 2269 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
1 February 2019
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
2,542 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a tea factory worker's unfair termination claim because the employer proved both a valid reason and a fair disciplinary process.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent from about 2005 to 31st May 2016 with a basic salary of approximately Kshs.47,589, sued for Kshs.1,458,934 as terminal dues, alleging wrongful and unfair termination following a letter of termination dated 31st May 2016 issued on grounds that he irregularly failed to replace the bearing of the 'B' spreader in the CTC area. He sought unpaid salary, two months' salary in lieu of notice, house allowance, twelve months' damages for unfair termination and gratuity, plus costs and interest. The respondent denied the claim, asserting that the claimant was lawfully terminated after due process: a notice to show cause dated 8th October 2015, his written response of 13th October 2015, suspension on half pay, a disciplinary hearing on 18th May 2016, and prior warnings for absconding duty, insubordination and negligence. The respondent further showed that terminal dues of Kshs.556,375.34 were paid by bankers cheque and accepted under an Employment Release Agreement. Determination was by written submissions, with three issues framed: lawfulness of termination, entitlement to relief, and costs. The court found the claimant had failed to prove unlawful termination, being overwhelmed by the respondent's evidence of substantive justification and procedural fairness under sections 41, 43, 44 and 47(5) of the Employment Act. The claim was dismissed with costs to the respondent, the court characterising the suit as opportunistic litigation.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was wrongful, unfair and unlawful

Holding

The court held that the termination was lawful. The respondent proved a valid reason (neglect of duty regarding failure to replace the 'B' spreader bearing) and followed a fair procedure (notice to show cause, response, suspension, disciplinary hearing, notification of decision).

Reasoning

The court found the claimant's case totally controverted by the respondent's evidence, including notice to show cause dated 8th October 2015, the claimant's representations of 13th October 2015, a disciplinary hearing on 18th May 2016, and prior warning letters. The Stores Bin Card showed bearings were in store, making the failure to replace them inexcusable. The respondent satisfied sections 41, 43 and 44 of the Employment Act, and the claimant failed to discharge his burden under section 47(5).

p. 5
02

Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought

Holding

The claimant is not entitled to the relief sought; having failed on liability for unlawful termination, all heads of claim fail.

Reasoning

Entitlement to the terminal dues, damages for unfair termination, notice pay and gratuity claimed was contingent on establishing unlawful termination. The court found the respondent had already paid terminal benefits (salary in lieu of notice, leave pay and gratuity totalling Kshs.556,375.34) through bankers cheque No.002710, receipt of which the claimant accepted upon executing an Employment Release Agreement.

p. 5
03

Who bears the costs of the claim

Holding

Costs are awarded to the respondent because the claimant mounted opportunistic litigation.

Reasoning

Although costs normally follow the event, the court expressly justified the award on the claimant's conduct of the litigation, characterising the claim as opportunistic and to the detriment of the respondent.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The burden of proving that an unfair termination or wrongful dismissal has occurred rests on the employee, while the burden of justifying the grounds for termination rests on the employer (section 47(5), Employment Act).
  • For a termination to pass the fairness test there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed with costs to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Section 41
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 43(1)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 44(4)(c)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 45(5)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 47(5)
  • Employment Act, 2007Sections 33 and 44
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 8

Cases cited (4)

  • Mary Chemweno Kiptui v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited
    (2014) eKLR
  • Jane Samba Mukala v Ol Tukai Lodge Limited
    Industrial Cause Number 823 of 2010; (2010) LLR 255 (ICK) (September, 2013)
  • Walter Ogal Anuro vs. Teachers Service Commission
    (2013) eKLR
  • Anthony Mkala Chitavi v Malindi Water & Sewerage Co. Ltd
    Industrial Court Cause No. 66 of 2012
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (claim of unfair/wrongful termination of employment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (11)

#

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, "Meshack Auta Ongeri v Nyamache Tea Factory Company Limited [2019] KEELRC 2269 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No. 68 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2269/eng@2019-02-01

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