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 22 of 2019· [2020] KEELRC 1319 (KLR)

Stephen Were v Wamuti Distributors Limited [2020] KEELRC 1319 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 March 2020
2,706 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled an employer cannot quietly extend probation; once probation lapses, dismissal requires notice and a hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed as general manager on 1st March 2017 at a monthly salary of Kshs. 114,000/-, was summarily dismissed on 31st August 2017 on grounds of poor performance. He sued for a declaration that the dismissal was unlawful, unfair and inhumane, one month's salary in lieu of notice, pro rata leave, 12 months' salary as compensation, interest and costs. The Respondent maintained that the Claimant was still on probation, extended by a letter dated 9th May 2017, and that termination on probation attracted only 7 days' notice under Section 42 of the Employment Act. The court found that the Claimant denied receipt of the extension letter and the Respondent could not demonstrate delivery; by operation of law under Section 42, the Claimant completed his probation after 3 months. Having continued working beyond probation, his services could only be terminated under Sections 35, 40, 41 or 44 of the Employment Act or by mutual agreement. The employer could not retrospectively extend probationary terms. The dismissal was therefore illegal and unlawful, the Claimant having been neither notified nor heard. The court entered judgment for the Claimant for one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 114,000/-), compensation of 2 months' salary (Kshs. 228,000/-), costs and interest from judgment. The 12 months' compensation and pro rata leave sought were not awarded. Execution was automatically stayed for 14 days under the COVID-19 practice directions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the probation period was validly extended

Holding

The extension was not proved; by operation of law under Section 42 of the Employment Act the Claimant completed his probation after 3 months

Reasoning

The court found the letter of 9th May 2017 was never demonstrated to have been received by the Claimant, who denied receipt and did not sign for it. The fact of extension had to be demonstrated by the employer and the notification had to be unequivocal. Having continued working past 3 months, the Claimant was deemed confirmed by operation of law.

p. 2
02

Whether the summary dismissal was lawful and procedurally fair

Holding

The dismissal was illegal and unlawful as the Claimant was not notified or heard

Reasoning

Once the probation lapsed, termination had to follow Sections 35, 40, 41 or 44 of the Employment Act. The Claimant ought to have been notified of the intention to dismiss, heard, and dismissed only if his explanation was unsatisfactory. The Respondent admitted no hearing, no notice to show cause and no 7 days' notice were given.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer alleging extension of a probationary period must demonstrate that the extension was notified to the employee, and such notification must be unequivocal
  • Once an employee continues working after the lapse of the initial probationary period, termination must comply with Sections 35, 40, 41 or 44 of the Employment Act or be by mutual agreement
  • An employer cannot retrospectively purport to extend probationary terms

Court orders

#
  1. 1.One month's salary in lieu of notice – Kshs. 114,000/-
  2. 2.Compensation of 2 months salary – Kshs. 228,000/-
  3. 3.Costs of the suit
  4. 4.Interest at court rates on items 1 and 2 from the date of judgment till payment in full
  5. 5.Execution of the judgment automatically stayed for 14 days; any execution thereafter to be sanctioned by the Court

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 27(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 42
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 43
  • Employment Act, 2007Sections 35, 40, 41 and 44
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1 and 3

Cases cited (5)

  • Narry Philemons Onaya-Odek v Technical University of Kenya (formerly The Kenya Polytechnic University College)
    [2017] eKLR
  • Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission
    [2013] eKLR
  • Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions & Hospitals Workers v Mombasa Sports Club
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenfreight (EA) Limited v Benson Nguti
    [2016] eKLR
  • Danish Jalang'o & Christopher Kisia Kivango v Amicabre Travel Services Limited
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over unfair termination claims (Employment Act, 2007)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Stephen Were v Wamuti Distributors Limited [2020] KEELRC 1319 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No 22 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1319/eng@2020-03-30

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