Allan Bilabili Kilaini v Woolmatt Limited [2020] KEELRC 1595 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employee's dismissal unfair because the employer never shared the workplace rules he allegedly broke.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the reasons for termination were valid and fair under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
The termination was unfair because the alleged rules breached were not documented or issued to employees, so the reason lacked reasonable cause and validity.
The claimant did not deny using the PDQ machine to access cash; his defence was that it was general practice and he encashed the balance receipt at the cashier. The respondent failed to produce the rules and regulations governing PDQ machine use, and both the manager and the human resource officer could not explain them. Section 12 and section 45 of the Employment Act required the employer to communicate workplace conduct rules. Consequently the reasons lacked validity and the termination was unfair under section 45.
Quantum of compensation under section 45(5)
Compensation limited to one month's gross wage of Kshs. 14,844.00 due to the claimant's litany of misconduct during employment.
Under section 45(5) the court considered the work history; the claimant had a litany of misconduct during employment, justifying a reduced award of one month's gross wage rather than the statutory maximum of twelve months.
Underpayment claim
Rejected; no written change of employment particulars, so the claimant remained a general labourer paid per Wage Orders.
Sections 10 and 13 of the Employment Act place the duty on the employer to keep work records and issue written details of changes. The respondent asserted the claimant was always a general labourer. Without any written statement of change of job title, and given payment statements showed payment in tandem with Wage Orders, the claim of underpayment lacked justification.
Legal principles established
#- An employer bears the burden of proving a valid and fair reason and fair procedure for termination; the employer must bring disciplinary rules and regulations to the attention of employees.
- Where disciplinary rules are not documented or issued to employees, the employer fails to justify discipline based on breach of such rules.
- A claim of underpayment fails without proof of a written change of employment particulars where the employer maintains records showing payment per Wage Orders.
Court orders
#- 1.Compensation for unfair termination assessed at one month's gross wage of Kshs. 14,844.00
- 2.Dismissal of all other claims (underpayments, service pay, leave, overtime, notice pay, December 2016 pay, bonus, certificate of service) as without merit
- 3.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (unfair termination and employment dues)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Allan Bilabili Kilaini v Woolmatt Limited [2020] KEELRC 1595 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No. 256 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1595/eng@2020-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.