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. 1491 of 2012 consolidated with Cause No. 1339 of 2012· [2020] KEELRC 928 (KLR)

Jackson Maundu Munyao v Rolmill Kenya Limited [2020] KEELRC 928 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 May 2020
MOMaureen Onyango
1,607 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

#

A Kenyan court ruled a driver's sacking without a hearing was unfair, awarding him notice pay, leave pay, and five months' salary.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a second judgment in a consolidated employment cause, issued to rectify an earlier judgment of 18th January 2019 which dealt only with the claimant Munyao and omitted Kithimba, whose cause had been consolidated with Munyao's. The claimant sought declarations that his dismissal was unlawful, terminal dues of Kshs.101,250 comprising one month's notice pay, untaken leave for two years and salary for the unexpired three months of his contract, plus costs and interest. The claimant testified he was employed as a driver in 2009 on renewed six-month contracts, and was denied access to the workplace on 25th October 2016, later being told the company had too many drivers. The respondent closed its case without calling any witness. The court held the termination unfair for want of both valid reason and fair procedure, the claimant having been given neither a hearing nor notice of the intention to terminate. On remedies, the court awarded pay in lieu of notice, leave for 26 months at 1.75 days per month (45.5 days), and 5 months' salary as compensation under Section 49(4) of the Employment Act, computed on the payslip gross salary of Kshs.13,163. The claim for the balance of the contract term was refused in view of the compensation. The total award was Kshs.99,013.50, with costs to the claimant and interest at court rates from judgment until payment in full. The judgment was delivered via video/email in line with COVID-19 directions, invoking Article 159(2)(d) and Article 48 of the Constitution and Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act.

Key legal issues

#
01

Fairness of termination

Holding

Termination was unfair for want of both valid reason and fair procedure

Reasoning

The respondent closed its case without calling any witness, leaving the claimant's testimony uncontroverted. The claimant was barred by a security guard and told the company had too many drivers. He was neither given a hearing nor informed of the intention to terminate, and had no opportunity to defend himself, contrary to Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.

p. 3
02

Remedies and quantum

Holding

Notice pay, leave for 26 months at 1.75 days per month (45.5 days) and 5 months' salary as compensation awarded; claim for remainder of contract refused

Reasoning

Section 28 of the Employment Act entitles the claimant to 1.75 days leave per month over 26 months. Compensation of 5 months' salary was assessed under Section 49(4) considering length of service and circumstances of termination. Salary was determined from the payslip as Kshs.13,163 gross, not the Kshs.16,875 claimed.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Termination without a hearing or notice of reasons is unfair for want of both valid reason and fair procedure
  • An employee unfairly terminated is entitled to notice pay, accrued leave at 1.75 days per month under Section 28, and compensation under Section 49(4)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Respondent to pay pay in lieu of notice of Kshs.13,163.00
  2. 2.Respondent to pay leave pay for 45.5 days of Kshs.20,030.50
  3. 3.Respondent to pay compensation of 5 months' salary of Kshs.65,820.00
  4. 4.Total award of Kshs.99,013.50
  5. 5.Respondent to pay claimant's costs with interest at court rates from date of judgment till payment in full

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 43
  • Employment ActSection 45
  • Employment ActSection 28
  • Employment ActSection 49
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48

Cases cited (5)

  • Jared Dimba v Fina Bank Limited
  • Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission
  • Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Meru North Farmers SACCO Limited
  • Donald Odeke v Fidelity Security Limited
  • Mary Mutanu Mwendwa v Ayuda Ninos De Africa-Kenya (Anidan) K.
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act; Civil Procedure Act Order 21 Rule 1 and Section 1B invoked for delivery of judgment during COVID-19 measures

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jackson Maundu Munyao v Rolmill Kenya Limited [2020] KEELRC 928 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No. 1491 of 2012 consolidated with Cause No. 1339 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/928/eng@2020-05-29

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