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 AllowedMemorandum of Claim filed 8th January 2016 (Further Amended 28th May 2018)· [2020] KEELRC 992 (KLR)

Henry Nyabuto Ondieki v Chemelil Sugar Company Limited [2020] KEELRC 992 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 May 2020
MOMaureen Onyango
2,326 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled Chemelil Sugar unfairly fired an employee over a private cane dispute, awarding him 12 months' salary as compensation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent since 1988 as a Field Supervisor, was issued a notice to show cause on 22nd April 2015 over allegations of fraud and conflict of interest arising from a complaint by a private farmer, Edward Asiachi Ateku, that the claimant had harvested cane from leased plots and failed to pay him for a third harvest. After a disciplinary process, his employment was terminated on 30th June 2015. He sued for reinstatement, salary to retirement, 12 months' compensation, damages, and unpaid salary arrears and unremitted statutory obligations. The court framed two issues: whether the termination was lawful and fair, and whether the claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought. It found no valid reason for termination, holding that the disciplinary process was based on grounds that did not concern the respondent and had no relation to the claimant's employment, and that no regulation barred an employee of a cane-growing company from growing cane. The termination was therefore unfair. The court declined reinstatement (over three years had lapsed), salary to retirement, and exemplary and general damages, and held the claimant was not entitled to notice pay, withheld salary, leave days or pension, which had already been paid. It awarded 12 months' salary as compensation, directed the respondent to tabulate and pay arrears arising from the 2014 salary review, awarded costs of Kshs.50,000 plus filing fees, and interest on the decretal sum from the date of judgment. Judgment was delivered virtually at Nairobi on 29th May 2020.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination was for a valid reason

Holding

There was no valid reason for termination; the termination was unfair.

Reasoning

The disciplinary process was based on a dispute with a private farmer over cane payments, which had no relation to the claimant's employment. The respondent did not cite any regulation barring an employee of a cane-growing company from growing cane, and did not explain how selling cane to Chemelil Outgrowers Company constituted a conflict of interest. The security officer's own findings also cast doubt on the complaint.

p. 4
02

Compensation for unfair termination

Holding

Claimant awarded 12 months' salary based on the respondent's 2014 salary increment.

Reasoning

Having found the termination unfair, the court exercised discretion to award 12 months' salary as compensation, taking into account the claimant's length of service, his inability to find alternative employment due to his age, and the circumstances surrounding the termination.

p. 4
03

Underpaid salary arising from 2014 salary review

Holding

Respondent directed to tabulate and pay arrears of salary increments from the 2014 review to termination date.

Reasoning

The respondent did not controvert the claimant's prayers for arrears of salary arising from increments following the 2014 salary review; the court therefore directed the respondent to tabulate and pay the difference for the period from the review to the termination date.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Termination of employment must be founded on a valid and fair reason related to the employment; disciplinary grounds unconnected to the employment and unsupported by any regulation cannot justify termination.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent to tabulate and pay the difference due to the claimant as a result of the 2014 salary review from the date of review to date of termination on 30th June 2015
  2. 2.The Claimant awarded 12 months' salary (based on the respondent's salary increment of 2014) as compensation for unfair termination
  3. 3.The Respondent to bear the cost of the suit awarded at Kshs.50,000 plus court filing fees
  4. 4.The decretal sum to accrue interest from date of judgment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Henry Nyabuto Ondieki v Chemelil Sugar Company Limited [2020] KEELRC 992 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Memorandum of Claim filed 8th January 2016 (Further Amended 28th May 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/992/eng@2020-05-29

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