Joseph Mwalati Injendi v Imara Holdings Limited [2021] KEELRC 163 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that firing an employee without an actual hearing is unfair, even when there are genuine reasons, but cut compensation accordingly.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the Claimant was lawful and fair
Though valid reasons existed, the termination was procedurally unfair as the Claimant was never accorded a hearing under Section 41 of the Employment Act
The court applied Section 45 and Section 41 of the Employment Act and the Court of Appeal decision in Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui, holding Section 41 couched in mandatory terms. The Respondent admitted there was no hearing and no evidence of an invitation to a hearing existed. A show cause letter cannot substitute for an actual hearing. The termination was therefore unlawful and unfair.
Whether there were valid and justifiable reasons for termination
Yes - on balance of probabilities, the unpaid invoice/fraud allegation and proceeding on paternity leave without permission were valid reasons
The suspension letter cited losses and a fraud involving stock delivered to a customer. Although no audit report or proof of the alleged Kshs. 163,000 loss was produced, the invoice to Mama Watoto supermarket was generated but payment was never made. The court found these reasons valid on balance of probabilities, though the process remained unfair.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought
Partially - compensation for 3 months, one month notice pay, accrued leave and commissions awarded; 12 months' compensation refused
Applying Sections 49 and 50 of the Employment Act, the court considered the employee's contribution to the termination, his failure to respond to the show cause, the existence of valid reasons and his likelihood of securing comparable employment, and found 3 months' salary adequate compensation. Leave, notice and commission claims were granted as the employer failed to produce records to rebut them.
Legal principles established
#- Section 41 of the Employment Act requires an actual hearing before termination; a notice to show cause alone does not satisfy the procedural fairness requirement
- Where an employer fails to produce a written contract, the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of employment falls on the employer (Section 10(7) Employment Act)
- The employer bears the obligation to keep and produce employment records such as leave records and commission/target records
Court orders
#- 1.Compensatory damages for 3 months' gross salary of Kshs. 25,000 x 3, total Kshs. 75,000
- 2.Notice pay for 1 month salary, Kshs. 25,000
- 3.Accrued annual leave for 8 months, Kshs. 16,667
- 4.Outstanding commission of Kshs. 25,000
- 5.All awards subject to statutory deductions
- 6.Interest on the award at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 7.Respondent to pay costs of the claim to the Claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court established under Article 162(2) of the Constitution; claim brought under the Employment Act, 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joseph Mwalati Injendi v Imara Holdings Limited [2021] KEELRC 163 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No. 38 of 2017 (formerly Cause No. 199 of 2016 Kisumu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/163/eng@2021-12-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.