Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2021] KEELRC 306 (KLR)

Maria Mbala Skock v Coast Academy Limited [2021] KEELRC 306 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 December 2021
954 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent from 2009 as a cleaner earning Kshs. 8,060.00 monthly, claimed she was summarily terminated on 30.06.2015 after the head teacher alleged the toilets were not well brushed, without prior notice. She alleged violation of Articles 41 and 47(1) of the Constitution and ILO Convention 158, and breach of sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007. She sought notice pay, seven years' leave pay, underpayment for May 2013 to April 2014, twelve months' compensation for unfair termination totalling Kshs. 131,448.00, a declaration that the termination was unfair, and costs. The respondent admitted the employment but contended the claimant was dismissed for arrogant, rude behaviour and refusal to apologise at a disciplinary hearing, invoking sections 41 and 44 of the Act. The respondent's witnesses were her supervisor and the head teacher. The court found the contract of service undisputed, with last gross monthly pay of Kshs. 9,000.00. It accepted that the claimant was dismissed over smelly toilets, had been asked to explain and apologise and continue working, but refused. The court held the respondent established a genuine reason for termination under sections 41 and 45, the procedure was not unfair, the claimant was the author of her dismissal and contributed 100%, and the respondent could dismiss with shorter notice under section 44. The leave claim failed because the claimant took leave during school holidays and raised no grievance. The underpayment claim failed because the wage orders relied upon could not apply retrospectively and the Agricultural Industry Order did not apply to a school. The claim was dismissed with each party bearing own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of reason for termination

Holding

The respondent established a genuine reason for termination under sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act

Reasoning

The claimant was dismissed on account that the toilets she cleaned were smelly. She was summoned, asked to explain and apologise and continue working, but refused. The court found the refusal to apologise showed unwillingness to improve, so the respondent established a genuine reason and the procedure was not unfair.

p. 2
02

Compensation for unfair termination

Holding

Claimant not entitled to compensation; she contributed 100% to her dismissal

Reasoning

Having found the termination not unfair, and that the claimant's own refusal to apologise caused the separation, the court held she was the author of her dismissal and contributed 100%, disentitling her to the 12 months' compensation sought.

p. 2
03

Retrospective application of wage orders

Holding

The wage orders relied upon could not apply retrospectively and the Agricultural Industry Order did not apply to a school cleaner

Reasoning

The claimant relied on the Regulation of Wages (Agricultural Industry) (Amendment) Order 2015 operational from 01.05.2015 for underpayment in 2013-2014. The court held the order could not apply retrospectively and, the claimant having worked in a school, the Agricultural Industry Order could not apply.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee given an opportunity to apologise and continue working who refuses is the author of their own dismissal and may be dismissed with shorter notice under section 44 of the Employment Act
  • Wage orders cannot apply retrospectively to periods before they became operational

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Memorandum of claim dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear own costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 47(1)
  • Employment Act, 2007Sections 41, 43, 44 and 45
  • Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order No. 197 of 2013Not specified
  • Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order 2015Not specified
  • Regulation of Wages (Agricultural Industry) (Amendment) Order 2015Not specified
  • ILO Convention 158 of 1992Not specified
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (Articles 41 and 47(1) of the Constitution invoked by the claimant)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maria Mbala Skock v Coast Academy Limited [2021] KEELRC 306 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/306/eng@2021-12-03

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