Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No 154 of 2018· [2020] KEELRC 643 (KLR)

Nassoro Mohamed Mwanyule v Abry Logistics Limited [2020] KEELRC 643 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 May 2020
LNLINNET NDOLO
1,090 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded a driver Kshs. 175,000 because his employer couldn't prove why it fired him or follow any fair disciplinary process.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent as a Driver from May 2015, claimed his employment was terminated verbally on 7th October 2017 without justifiable cause and in violation of due procedure. He sought one month's salary in lieu of notice, twelve months' salary as compensation, a certificate of service, costs and interest. The Respondent admitted the employment but maintained the termination was lawful and fair, contending the Claimant abandoned duty by insisting a roadworthy truck was faulty, and that he left unceremoniously without collecting his certificate of service, having been paid all dues including notice pay. The dispute centred on whether the truck assigned to the Claimant and his turn boy for a Kampala trip was mechanically faulty. The Court found the Respondent's case wanting: it failed to file the technician's report allegedly declaring the truck roadworthy, never showed that report to the Claimant, subjected the Claimant and his turn boy to no disciplinary process, and did not call the technician or the driver allegedly sent to ask the Claimant to resume duty. The Court held the allegations unproved and the termination substantively and procedurally unfair. It awarded six months' salary in compensation (Kshs. 150,000), one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 25,000), totaling Kshs. 175,000 with interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full, plus a certificate of service and costs. By consent recorded on 27th January 2020, the judgment applies equally to the related Cause No 155 of 2018 involving the Claimant's turn boy, Mwinyi Hamadi Abdulrahman, against the same Respondent. Judgment was delivered electronically under COVID-19 directives.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was lawful and fair

Holding

The termination was substantively and procedurally unfair; the allegations against the Claimant (insisting the truck was faulty) were unproved and he was not subjected to any disciplinary process

Reasoning

The employer asserted the truck was roadworthy and that the Claimant refused to resume duty. The employer failed to produce the technician's inspection report, did not show it to the Claimant, subjected him to no disciplinary hearing, and did not call the technician or Mohamed Gona as witnesses. The Court could not find the truck faultless on this evidence; as a professional driver the Claimant would be justified refusing a faulty truck. The allegations were therefore unproved.

p. 2
02

Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought

Holding

Partially: six months' salary in compensation and one month's salary in lieu of notice were awarded, together with a certificate of service and costs

Reasoning

Having found the termination unfair, the Court exercised its discretion under the Employment Act to award six months' salary as compensation rather than the twelve months sought, factoring in the Claimant's length of service and the Respondent's conduct in the termination transaction. One month's salary in lieu of notice was awarded, which the Respondent had claimed to have already paid but did not establish.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must prove the validity of the reason for termination under Section 43 of the Employment Act; where the alleged reason rests on a contested factual matter, the employer should produce supporting evidence such as an inspection report and call the relevant witnesses
  • Failure to subject an employee to a disciplinary process before termination renders the termination procedurally unfair

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant for Kshs. 175,000 (six months' salary in compensation of Kshs. 150,000 and one month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 25,000)
  2. 2.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
  3. 3.Claimant entitled to a certificate of service
  4. 4.Claimant awarded costs of the case
  5. 5.Judgment to apply by consent to Cause No 155 of 2018: Mwinyi Hamadi Abdulrahman v Abry Logistics Limited

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 43
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 40
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 18
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (claim for unfair termination); judgment delivered electronically pursuant to Article 159(2)(d) and Article 40 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nassoro Mohamed Mwanyule v Abry Logistics Limited [2020] KEELRC 643 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No 154 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/643/eng@2020-05-21

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