Anthony Muthumbu Wachira v Kenya Airports Authority [2020] KEELRC 1531 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled KAA's dismissal of its ICT chief was procedurally fair but lacked valid reasons, awarding him Kshs 2.8 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the summary dismissal
The Respondent substantially complied with statutory procedural fairness requirements under sections 35(1), 36, 41 and 47(5) of the Employment Act.
The Claimant was notified of the allegations, given the show-cause notice, supplied the audit report, made written representations and appeared before the Staff Committee of the Board. Allegations of bias against committee members lacked evidential support. Although the hearing was scheduled with less than 7 days' notice contrary to the Respondent's Disciplinary Policies, and the Respondent did not explain this, the court still found substantial compliance with the statutory requirements.
Substantive fairness (valid and fair reasons)
The reasons for summary dismissal did not constitute valid or fair reasons.
The Respondent was required to prove the validity and fairness of the reasons for dismissal under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. The Claimant gave detailed responses, a joint verification with an audit officer established inaccuracies in the audit report, switches were all accounted for, and Certificates of Completion were issued by other senior officers, not the Claimant. The Claimant, though Head of ICT, could not be wholly blamed.
Fair administrative action claim
Claim failed because the Claimant did not prove the Respondent was exercising an administrative function.
The court applied the distinction drawn in Chirwa v Transnet between fair administrative action and an employer's contractual authority. Disciplinary action pursuant to an employment contract is an exercise of contractual power, not an administrative function, so the fair administrative action framework did not apply absent proof that the employer acted administratively.
Compensation for unfair (substantively) unfair termination
Compensation equivalent to 4 months' gross salary awarded, considering about 4 years of service.
The court exercised discretion under the Employment Act taking into account the length of service of about 4 years. The gross salary at separation was Kshs 585,717/-, yielding an award of Kshs 2,342,868/-. Combined with uncontested salary balances of Kshs 468,575/-, the total award was Kshs 2,811,443/-.
Legal principles established
#- An employee alleging bias or prejudice on the part of a disciplinary committee bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence of bias.
- An employer must prove valid and fair reasons for dismissal under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007.
- A person claiming violation of fair administrative action must prove the employer was exercising an administrative function rather than contractual power as employer.
- Service pay is not payable where the employee contributes to NSSF and a pension scheme under section 35(5) & (6) of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the summary dismissal of the Claimant, though procedurally fair, was not for valid and fair reasons
- 2.Award of compensation equivalent to 4 months' gross salary of Kshs 2,342,868/-
- 3.Award of unpaid salary balances of Kshs 468,575/-
- 4.Total award of Kshs 2,811,443/-
- 5.Respondent to compute and pay the dues set out in the dismissal letter
- 6.Claimant denied costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (the judgment does not cite the specific constitutional provision)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anthony Muthumbu Wachira v Kenya Airports Authority [2020] KEELRC 1531 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1531/eng@2020-03-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.