Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No 1341 of 2015· [2020] KEELRC 1018 (KLR)

Felix Mwalimu v Nairobi Safari Club [2020] KEELRC 1018 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 May 2020
1,945 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer that terminates without a valid reason, notice, or redundancy procedure under the Employment Act must pay the employee substantial compensation and costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed as Chief Engineer on a monthly salary of Kshs. 200,000 from about 1st November 2014, sued for wrongful and unfair summary termination on 26th June 2015 and unpaid terminal dues. He sought a declaration of unfair termination, one month's salary in lieu of notice, June 2015 salary, twelve months' compensation, leave pay, severance pay, reinstatement and costs. The Respondent admitted the engagement but asserted that the claim was compromised when the Claimant was reinstated on 19th August 2015 with an upward salary review on the understanding that the suit would be withdrawn, and urged dismissal as overtaken by events. At hearing, the Claimant (CW1) testified that no reason or notice preceded the termination, the stated reason being low business, which is in substance redundancy. RW1, the Human Resource Manager, confirmed that no notice was issued and the Labour office was not informed. The Claimant relied on authorities enforcing the mandatory procedure of Section 40 of the Employment Act for redundancy; the Respondent relied on authorities to the effect that reinstatement extinguishes the claim. The court found the termination letter gave no reason, that the Respondent failed to establish a valid reason or a fair hearing, and that the new appointment letter did not indicate the claim had been compromised. The Claim succeeded in part: the court awarded one month's notice pay, June 2015 salary, leave pay for eight months, and eight months' compensation for unfair termination, subject to statutory deductions, with costs and interest. Severance pay, the twelve-month compensation claim and reinstatement were not granted.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the reason for termination

Holding

The termination letter gave no reason; the Respondent failed to prove a valid reason under Section 43 of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

The termination letter cited low business but did not properly articulate a reason. RW1 confirmed no notice was issued and the Labour office was not informed. The court held the burden of proving validity under Section 43 was not discharged, and that redundancy procedures under Section 40 were not followed.

p. 3
02

Effect of reinstatement and alleged compromise agreement on the claim

Holding

Reinstatement did not compromise the claim; the new appointment letter did not indicate the claim had been withdrawn, so the cause of action for the June 2015 termination survived.

Reasoning

The Respondent argued the suit was overtaken by events after reinstatement and a salary review. The court found no evidence in the new appointment letter of any compromise of the filed claim, and the Claimant had not been compensated for the unfair termination, so compensation remained payable.

p. 3
03

Fair hearing before termination

Holding

No fair hearing was accorded before the June 2015 termination.

Reasoning

The court found no valid reason and no fair process. RW1 confirmed that no notice was issued prior to termination and that the Labour office was not informed, undermining procedural fairness.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must establish a valid reason for termination and accord the employee a fair hearing; failure to do so renders the termination unfair.
  • Where termination is on account of low business (redundancy), the mandatory provisions of Section 40 of the Employment Act must be complied with.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.1 month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 200,000
  2. 2.Unpaid June 2015 salary of Kshs. 200,000
  3. 3.Unpaid leave for 8 months computed as 8/12 x 30 x 200,000 = Kshs. 132,000
  4. 4.8 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination computed as 8 x 200,000 = Kshs. 1,600,000, all subject to statutory deductions
  5. 5.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of judgment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Section 43
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 40
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 35(6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Kenya Airways Limited Vs Aviation & Allied Workers Union of Kenya & 3 Others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Paul Wachiuri Ndonga Vs Keroche Breweries Limited
    (2018) eKLR
  • Mercy Gakii Nabea Vs Malindi Management Strategy Limited
    (2019) eKLR
  • Thomas De La Rue Vs David Opondo Omutelema
    (2013) eKLR
  • Peter Njoroge Kibe Vs Teachers Service Commission
    (2017) eKLR
  • Banking Insurance Finance Union Of Kenya Vs Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    (2015)
  • Parliamentary Service Commission Vs Christine Mwambua
    (2018) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (constitutional/statutory basis not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Felix Mwalimu v Nairobi Safari Club [2020] KEELRC 1018 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No 1341 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1018/eng@2020-05-21

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