Stephen Chase Kisaka v Emirates Airline Limited [2020] KEELRC 975 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled Emirates unfairly dismissed a manager because the airline couldn't prove its reasons and ran a flawed disciplinary hearing, awarding millions in compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether there were valid reasons for the dismissal
No valid reasons were proved; the alleged misconduct (failure to report a staff member collecting money, failure to disclose conflict of interest) was not established
The Claimant denied knowledge of the staff member collecting money from a travel agency and the name was never disclosed. RW1 could not identify the staff member either. The investigation report by Group Security and the complaints against the sales team were never produced in court. The two conflicted staff (Francis and Morris) continued in employment after the Claimant was dismissed. The Respondent failed to discharge its burden under section 43 of the Employment Act.
Whether the disciplinary process was fair
The process was flawed and unfair; the Claimant's right to fair labour practices was breached
The Country Manager, Anita Kongson, insisted on chairing the disciplinary hearing despite the Claimant's objection for her recusal, sitting as accuser and judge. The Respondent refused to supply the investigation report and other requested documents, breaching Article 50(1) of the Constitution and sections 4(1), 4(3)(g) and 7(2)(a) of the Fair Administrative Action Act. The minutes of the hearing were not provided and the decision-makers (Human Resource in Dubai) were not properly connected to the process.
Entitlement to remedies
Claimant awarded earned tickets ($27,000), one month's pay in lieu of notice, 10 months' salary as compensation and 9 weeks' profit share; certificate of service to issue
Given the absence of valid reasons and the flawed process, 10 months' gross salary was awarded as compensation under section 49. Notice pay was awarded despite summary dismissal because the dismissal itself was unfair. Profit share was awarded as RW1 admitted the Claimant was in employment and contributed to the profits. Unproved monetary claims (leave, underpayment, travel allowance, future tickets) were rejected.
Legal principles established
#- The employer bears the burden of proving the reasons for termination, failing which the termination is unfair under section 45
- An employee is entitled to be supplied with documents and information to be relied upon in a disciplinary hearing, and a panel member perceived as a complainant should not chair the hearing
- Termination is unfair where the employer fails to prove a valid reason, a fair reason and a fair procedure
Court orders
#- 1.Award of earned tickets for a year under prayer (e) - $27,000 at the dollar rate to Kenya shillings as at date of judgment
- 2.Payment of 1 month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 504,189
- 3.10 months' salary as compensation for unfair dismissal (10 x 540,189) = Kshs. 5,041,890
- 4.Profit share for 9 weeks awarded as prayed at Kshs. 1,104,616.75
- 5.No other monetary relief awarded as other prayers were not proved
- 6.The Claimant to be issued with a Certificate of Service
- 7.The Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at Court rates from the date of the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act 2007, Articles 41 and 50(1) of the Constitution invoked)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stephen Chase Kisaka v Emirates Airline Limited [2020] KEELRC 975 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No 25 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/975/eng@2020-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.