Grace Mwenda Munjuri v Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya [2019] KEELRC 2388 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that suspending an employee without following the employer's own rules, then backdating her dismissal, was unlawful and ordered full payment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant's suspension and termination were unlawful
Yes - both wrongful and unjustified
The termination letter alleged an unauthorised press conference, abusive language, conflict of interest and unauthorised commitment of Society funds, but the Respondent's own HR manager (RW1) conceded in cross-examination there was no proof of the abusive language or press conference, no records of payment during suspension, and that the People Daily article was not authored by the Claimant. The suspension contravened Clause 6.1(b)(ii) of the Code of Regulations since the Claimant was never charged or convicted of a criminal offence; interdiction, not suspension, was the appropriate measure. Backdating the termination was unjustifiable.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Partially - salary for suspension period, provident fund, medical expenses, transport, leave travelling allowance and untaken leave allowed; underpayments and aggravated/exemplary damages declined
Because the suspension was unlawful, the Claimant remained deemed in employment and was entitled to salary and provident fund contributions from May to October 2007. Medical expenses were payable under Clause 12 of the appointment letter and Section M of the Code of Regulations; transport and leave travelling allowance were claimable per the contract. Leave travelling allowance for April and the underpayment claims were not proved. No evidence of malice supported aggravated or exemplary damages.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must comply with the procedure set out in its own Code of Regulations; suspension is only available where the employee has been convicted of a criminal offence, otherwise interdiction applies.
- It is unjustifiable to backdate a termination letter; an employee terminated while on suspension remains entitled to salary for the intervening period.
- Where there is no evidence supporting the allegations against an employee, there is no valid reason for termination.
Court orders
#- 1.Award of salary withheld from May to October 2007 at Kshs.187,581 per month (Kshs.1,125,486)
- 2.Award of provident fund contributions from May to October 2007 at Kshs.13,519.5 (Kshs.81,117)
- 3.Award of medical expenses of Kshs.16,682
- 4.Award of transport to Eldoret show of Kshs.10,000
- 5.Award of leave travelling allowance for March 2007 of Kshs.23,000
- 6.Award of annual leave for 26 days of Kshs.159,195
- 7.Judgment entered for the claimant against the respondent in the total sum of Kshs.1,415,480.00/=
- 8.Respondent to pay the claimant's costs
- 9.Interest to accrue from date of filing suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction over a claim of unlawful suspension, backdated termination and withheld salary (Memorandum of Claim under the Court's rules); pre-2008 Employment Act Cap 226 (Repealed) regime considered
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Grace Mwenda Munjuri v Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya [2019] KEELRC 2388 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No 1317 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2388/eng@2019-02-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.