Elphas Omondi Otieno v Collindale Security Limited [2021] KEELRC 93 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant absconded duty or was dismissed from employment
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.
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.
Whether the Claimant's termination was unlawful, unfair and unjustifiable
The termination was procedurally flawed because the Claimant was not heard prior to termination, contrary to section 41 of the Employment Act.
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.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the terminal benefits and dues sought
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.
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.
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.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)
- 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.