Josephine Kwamboka Mayaka v Vegpro (K) Limited [2020] KEELRC 1099 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed an employer can dismiss without notice when a worker refuses lawful instructions, provided fair disciplinary steps are followed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether there was unfair termination of employment
- 2.whether the remedies sought are due
Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was unfair
The summary dismissal was justified and due process was applied
The claimant refused to undertake allocated duties at the farm manager's residence and sought to work only at her place of choice, frustrating her own employment. She was issued show cause notices on two occasions, replied to one in English, was invited to a disciplinary hearing under section 41(2) of the Employment Act, and refused a warning. Refusal to obey lawful instructions constitutes gross misconduct under section 44(3) and (4)(e), justifying summary dismissal.
Whether the remedies sought are due
None of the claimed dues were payable
Notice pay and compensation are unavailable where summary dismissal is justified. The allowance claim was not pleaded in the Memorandum of Claim nor addressed in submissions, lacking any lawful or policy foundation. Severance pay under section 40 of the Employment Act was not applicable to a summary dismissal. All claims were therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who knowingly fails or refuses to obey a lawful and proper command within the scope of his duty commits gross misconduct attracting summary dismissal under section 44(3) and (4)(e) of the Employment Act
- Work allocation is the prerogative of the employer; refusal of lawful work direction is gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal where due process under section 41 is followed
Court orders
#- 1.The claims made are found without foundation and are dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (employment cause)
Relief refused
#Notice pay (Ksh.6,073)
Not available where summary dismissal is found justified
Compensation
Not available where summary dismissal is found justified
Allowance of Ksh.60,000
Not pleaded in the Memorandum of Claim nor addressed in submissions; no lawful or policy basis
Severance pay of Ksh.364,440
Not covered under section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007
Costs
Each party shall bear own costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
the resulting summary dismissal from employment is hereby found justified and due process was applied.
Notice pay and compensation are claims not available in a case where summary dismissal is found justified.
Accordingly, the claims made are found without foundation and are hereby dismissed. Each party shall bear own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment misdates its own delivery - the body and order state 7th May, 2020, though the cause is from 2017 and the heading says nothing conflicting; recorded as 2020-05-07
Typographical errors in the judgment (e.g. 'Employment Act, 207' and 'KENAY')
The judgment alternately refers to the dismissal occurring on 10th November 2016 (defence) and 17th November 2016 (claim and dismissal letter), a discrepancy in the record
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Josephine Kwamboka Mayaka v Vegpro (K) Limited [2020] KEELRC 1099 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No. 500 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1099/eng@2020-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.