Justus Mulandi Munuve & 35 others v Easy Pack Company Limited [2019] KEELRC 2414 (KLR)
The bottom line
#When Kenya's plastic bag ban ended 36 factory jobs, the court ruled the employer still had to pay notice, leave, housing allowance and issue service certificates.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Proof of employment where the employer denies it
All 36 Claimants, including the two denied by the Respondent's witness, were employees of the Respondent; payslips and exhibits proved employment.
The court found that exhibits produced by the Claimants demonstrated employment. The Respondent's witness denied two claimants, but payslips for those two were produced in evidence. The employer, which is required to keep employment records, produced none to controvert the Claimants' evidence.
Frustration of contracts of employment by the plastic bag ban
The Gazette Notice banning single-use plastics frustrated all the Claimants' contracts of employment.
Applying the doctrine of frustration, the court held that the ban on single-use plastics removed the foundation of the Respondent's business, rendering performance of the employment contracts impossible without default of either party. The termination was therefore not an unfair dismissal or redundancy but a supervening event outside the Respondent's control.
Consequences of frustration on accrued employment entitlements
Despite frustration, the Respondent remained liable for notice, leave earned, overtime worked, days worked in August 2017 and housing allowance under Section 31 of the Employment Act, and for certificates of service.
The court held that frustration excuses further performance but does not extinguish accrued obligations. Housing is a basic right in the employment sphere per Section 31 of the Employment Act, and certificates of service are mandatory under Section 51. No notice was given to the labour office, and no notice pay was paid.
Legal principles established
#- Frustration of the employment contract by a statutory ban does not absolve the employer from obligations accrued under the contract, including notice and terminal dues.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration implied that the dismissal/termination of the Claimants was on account of frustration of contract but the Respondent remained obligated to pay notice and terminal dues
- 2.Payment to each of the 36 Claimants of notice pay, housing allowance and leave entitlement as per the tabulation attached to the decision
- 3.Payment of underpayment amounts to the Claimants listed with such entries (Nos. 22, 23, 32, 33)
- 4.Issuance of certificates of service to each Claimant per Section 51 of the Employment Act
- 5.Costs of the suit to the Claimants
- 6.Refusal of severance pay and compensation for unfair termination
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes; Respondent raised a territorial objection that the suit ought to have been filed in Nairobi, which the court did not uphold.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Justus Mulandi Munuve & 35 others v Easy Pack Company Limited [2019] KEELRC 2414 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2414/eng@2019-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.