Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the text provided· [2021] KEELRC 93 (KLR)

Elphas Omondi Otieno v Collindale Security Limited [2021] KEELRC 93 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
Invalid Date
829 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a security guard later promoted to crew commander earning Kshs. 14,652 per month, sued for a declaration that his termination was unlawful and unfair, terminal dues of Kshs. 256,452, costs, interest, and a certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act. He testified that on 20th November 2015 he was involved in a motorbike accident on his way to work, was treated at Mbagathi District Hospital at the Respondent's expense, and was recommended one month's bed rest. He said he informed Mr. Maina in the control room and left the sick sheet at the Respondent's Khoja Mosque assignment. When he reported back on 21st December 2015 he was handed a letter dated 5th December 2015 terminating his services for desertion. He maintained he was never heard before the termination. The Respondent's Human Resource Manager, Mrs. Caroline Odhiambo, maintained that the Claimant deserted duty, did not notify the Respondent, and did not present any sick leave, but conceded under cross-examination that the Respondent's evidence supporting desertion was never filed, and that she only saw the sick sheet when the suit was filed. She testified that the Claimant cleared with the company and was paid, and that a certificate of service was prepared but not collected. The issues framed were whether the Claimant absconded or was dismissed, whether the termination was lawful and fair, and entitlement to terminal dues. The judgment, delivered at Nairobi on 14th December 2021 by Nzioki wa Makau J, concluded 'It is so ordered', but the text provided does not reproduce the closing findings and orders.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant absconded duty or was dismissed from employment

Holding

The court accepted the Claimant's account that he was on one month's bed rest following a motorbike accident and reported back on 21st December 2015, at which point he was handed a letter of termination dated 5th December 2015 on account of desertion; the Respondent's witness conceded that the alleged evidence of desertion was not filed.

Reasoning

The Claimant testified he was involved in a motorbike accident on 20th November 2015, was treated at Mbagathi District Hospital at the Respondent's expense, and was advised one month's bed rest. He said he informed Mr. Maina in the control room and left the sick sheet at the Khoja Mosque assignment. The Respondent's Human Resource Manager asserted desertion and that she tried to contact the Claimant, but confirmed that the Respondent's evidence of desertion was not filed, undermining the desertion allegation.

p. 2
02

Whether the Claimant's termination was unlawful, unfair and unjustifiable

Holding

The termination was procedurally flawed because the Claimant was not heard prior to termination, contrary to section 41 of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

The Claimant pleaded that the termination contravened section 41 of the Employment Act, which requires notification and a hearing before termination on grounds of misconduct. He testified he was not heard prior to termination. The Respondent's witness claimed she gave the Claimant an opportunity to explain himself, but this was contradicted by her evidence that the Respondent considered him a deserter and that its supporting evidence was never filed. The Claimant's return from sick leave, with the Respondent having catered for his medical expenses, further undermined the desertion basis.

p. 1
03

Whether the Claimant is entitled to the terminal benefits and dues sought

Holding

The Claimant sought Kshs. 256,452 as terminal dues, a certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act, costs and interest; the disposition on quantum is not reproduced in the text provided.

Reasoning

The memorandum of claim sought a declaration that the termination was unlawful and unfair, payment of Kshs. 256,452 in terminal dues, costs and interest, and a certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act. The Respondent's witness testified that the Claimant cleared with the company, was paid, and that a certificate of service was prepared but the Claimant declined to collect it. The judgment text provided ends abruptly and does not reproduce the assessment of dues or the final orders.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee who reports for duty after sick leave may only be lawfully terminated for desertion if the employer proves desertion and complies with section 41 of the Employment Act by according the employee a hearing.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant, as the court concluded with 'It is so ordered.' (the specific orders in the closing paragraphs are not reproduced in the text provided)

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 51
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations claims (Employment Act, 2007)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Elphas Omondi Otieno v Collindale Security Limited [2021] KEELRC 93 (KLR)", Case Analysis (). Not stated in the text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/93/eng@2021-12-14

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