James Kimonye v Kenya Meat Commission [2021] KEELRC 446 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court awarded a former KMC CEO Kshs.8.8 million because his employer never validly terminated his contract—and proved nothing at trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Who terminated the Claimant's contract of employment
The termination was effected by the Permanent Secretary and the Minister, who had no power to terminate under the Kenya Meat Commission Act; the quashing of their letters in judicial review means there was no lawful termination and the Claimant remained an employee for the contract duration
Under Section 6 of the Kenya Meat Commission Act, Cap 363, the power to appoint (and thus suspend or terminate) the Managing Commissioner was vested in the Commission subject to ministerial approval. The High Court in judicial review quashed the compulsory leave and termination letters and held the Claimant remained an employee for the entire contract period. That decision was not appealed and binds this Court. The Respondent and Board supported the Ministry's actions despite being strangers to the contract.
Whether the Defendant was guilty of gross misconduct
The allegations of gross misconduct were not proved; the Respondent tendered no evidence and its pleadings remain mere allegations
The Minister's termination letter was too general and the alleged misconduct was never previously communicated to the Claimant. All the documents implicating the Claimant were internal records in the Respondent's custody, yet it filed no documentation and no witness statement, and did not appear at the hearing. Applying the principle that pleadings are not evidence, the Claimant's uncontroverted evidence stands and the counterclaim fails.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies prayed for
The Claimant was awarded salary and remunerative allowances for 11 months, club membership and gratuity, but specific heads lacking evidential support were declined
Having found no lawful termination, the Claimant is entitled to emoluments for the remainder of his 3-year contract. The payslip on record supported a gross monthly pay of Kshs.450,000, awarded for 11 months. Gratuity at 31% of annual basic salary was awarded as provided in the appointment letter. Leave allowance, medical expenses, motor vehicle benefit and medical travel insurance were declined for want of proof.
Legal principles established
#- Pleadings are mere averments and are not a substitute for evidence; they must be proved
- Where a party fails to adduce evidence in support of pleadings, the other party's evidence stands uncontroverted
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant for Kshs.8,818,900 being salary and remunerative allowances of Kshs.4,950,000, club membership Kshs.74,500 and gratuity Kshs.3,794,400
- 2.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 3.The Counterclaim dismissed with costs to the Claimant
- 4.Costs of the suit awarded to the Claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction following transfer from the High Court pursuant to court order of 2 June 2015; dispute arising out of termination of employment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "James Kimonye v Kenya Meat Commission [2021] KEELRC 446 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No. 465 of 2017 (formerly Nairobi High Court Civil Suit No. 2015 of 2009). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/446/eng@2021-11-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.