Charles Muli Kiilu v Inspector General of Police & another [2020] KEELRC 1141 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a police officer's 2007 dismissal unlawful because the police never proved the written procedure he allegedly broke, entitling him to notice pay and full benefits.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the dismissal was wrongful
The dismissal was wrongful, unwarranted and harsh because the respondent did not prove the procedure the claimant allegedly flouted.
The claimant was dismissed for hiring out police officers without following laid down procedure, but the respondent never laid before the court the procedure required, nor evidence of how and to what extent the claimant breached it. The claimant testified there was no written procedure, that hiring was within his discretion, and that the OCPD received daily rosters. Without proof of the procedure, the dismissal could not stand.
Applicable legal regime for compensation
The repealed Employment Act governed since the dismissal preceded the current Employment Act; compensation for wrongful dismissal was equivalent to the necessary notice of termination.
The claimant's service was terminated on 30th October 2007, before the current Employment Act came into force. Under the previous regime the reasonableness of reasons for dismissal was not a statutory requirement, and where a termination was found unfair or wrongful, the quantum of compensation payable was equivalent to the necessary notice of termination. The court therefore awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice plus terminal benefits.
Fair hearing at the disciplinary proceedings
The court noted the contested account of notice; the claimant said he was not served with notice, while the respondent's witness said he informed the claimant of the charges and his right to call witnesses.
The claimant testified he was simply called to the Divisional Headquarters and proceedings started immediately, lasting two days, with six witnesses called against him and none by him. The respondent's witness, the Deputy OCPD, testified he informed the claimant of the charges and his entitlement to call witnesses, but the claimant called none. The decisive failure was the respondent's inability to prove the procedure breached.
Legal principles established
#- The reasonableness of reasons for dismissal was not a statutory requirement under the repealed Employment Act; under the current Employment Act the test is whether a reasonable employer would consider dismissal appropriate.
- An employer who accuses an employee of flouting a procedure must table evidence of the procedure, and the manner and extent of its breach; absent such evidence the termination is unwarranted and harsh.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the claimant be compensated with one month's salary in lieu of notice
- 2.Payment of pension, gratuity and all terminal benefits payable at the time of dismissal as if the claimant left service normally
- 3.Costs of the suit to the claimant
- 4.The authorized officer to compute and pay the claimant's dues
- 5.Any party be at liberty to apply for final orders
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act over a dispute of dismissal from police service
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charles Muli Kiilu v Inspector General of Police & another [2020] KEELRC 1141 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No 1654 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1141/eng@2020-05-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.