Vincent Taabuley Oundo v Royal Group Industries (K) Limited [2020] KEELRC 1443 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employee working over 30 days past his contract expiry gained full protection, but his misconduct slashed his compensation to one month's pay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Conversion of contract under section 37 of the Employment Act
The claimant, having continued working for over 30 days after expiry of his last fixed-term contract, became converted and protected under section 37
The last contract ran from 4th January 2017 to 3rd January 2018. No renewal was filed. The claimant worked on until 7th March 2018, over 30 days beyond expiry. Following Krystalline Salt Limited v Kwekwe Mwakele, the court applied section 37's conversion mechanism, noting the employee must show casual engagement or continued work aggregating over one month.
Procedural fairness in termination under sections 41 and 45
The termination was procedurally unfair because the disciplinary hearing notice had no forwarding address and service could not be established
The notice dated 26th February 2018 inviting the claimant to a disciplinary hearing on 6th March 2018 bore no forwarding address, and the claimant had not attended work after 14th February 2018. The court found the claimant's evidence that the disciplinary proceedings were a sham stood out as true, and that proceeding without proof of service of the invitation violated section 41(2), rendering the termination unfair under section 45(2).
Quantum of compensation under sections 45(5) and 49
Compensation assessed at one month's gross wage (Ksh.12,800) despite procedural unfairness, because the claimant's indiscipline and warnings had to be taken into account
Section 45(5) requires the court to take into account the employee's conduct. The claimant's failure to attend work on 14th February 2018 disrupted operations and amounted to gross misconduct, and he had prior warnings. Balancing procedural unfairness against the misconduct, the court awarded only one month's gross wage as compensation under section 49.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who continues working after expiry of a fixed-term contract for over a month is converted and protected under section 37 of the Employment Act
- In employment disputes the burden of proving genuine and justified grounds for termination lies on the employer, and general Evidence Act principles on burden of proof do not apply
- Even an employee guilty of gross misconduct must be accorded due process including notice and a hearing under section 41(2)
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the claimant against the respondent for payment of compensation at Ksh.12,800
- 2.A certificate of service to be issued to the claimant
- 3.Costs at 50%
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (sections 37, 41, 45 and 49)
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.
- Mbarire v Kenya Airways Limited (Cause 2399 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 1228 (KLR)[2024] KEELRC 1228 (KLR)4 Mar 2024
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Vincent Taabuley Oundo v Royal Group Industries (K) Limited [2020] KEELRC 1443 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No. 198 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1443/eng@2020-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.