Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedELRC Cause (memorandum of claim dated 8th June 2017)· [2021] KEELRC 690 (KLR)

James Kioko Mwanthi & 12 others v Athi River Shalom Community Hospital (Cause 1062 of 2017) (Employment and Labour) [2021] KEELRC 690 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 October 2021
6,331 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~25 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan hospital was ordered to pay 11 workers it pushed out for refusing to sign contracts with an outsourcing firm.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Thirteen former employees of Athi River Shalom Community Hospital (twelve cleaners and one security guard) sued the respondent alleging unfair termination following the outsourcing of housekeeping services to Rene Superclean Services Limited. On 2nd January 2017 the respondent issued a memo requiring staff to sign management contracts with the new contractor by noon on 3rd January 2017; the claimants declined and were chased out of the compound on 3rd January 2017. The respondent entered appearance but did not file a response or participate in the hearing, leaving the claimants' evidence uncontroverted. The court framed three issues: existence of a contract of service, unfairness of the termination, and entitlement to remedies. It found that the claimants proved employment on a balance of probabilities using payslips, NSSF statements and the memo. On the merits, the court held that the respondent ambushed the claimants, gave them a 'Hobsons Choice', and by forcing them out of the workplace committed a repudiatory breach amounting to constructive dismissal and unfair termination for want of substantive and procedural fairness, contrary to sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act and Article 41 of the Constitution. Remedies were assessed conservatively: the eleven claimants received one month's notice pay, house allowance for the duration served, damages of one or two months' salary depending on length of service, and certificates of service. Leave, overtime and public holiday claims failed for want of proof. The 6th claimant's claim was dismissed for contradictory evidence, and the 13th claimant's claim was withdrawn. Judgment was entered for the eleven claimants with costs and interest at court rates.

Key legal issues

#
01

Existence of a contract of service

Holding

On a balance of probabilities, the claimants established a contract of service with the respondent, evidenced by memo, payslips, NSSF statements and other documents even where contracts of employment were lacking

Reasoning

Only the 5th and 6th claimants produced employment contracts, but the others relied on circumstantial documents including the respondent's memo of 2nd January 2017, payslips, NSSF statements and recognition letters. The court held these documents evidenced an employment relationship despite not being contracts of employment.

p. 7
02

Whether the termination was unfair and unlawful

Holding

The respondent's conduct of ambushing the claimants with an outsourcing memo and forcing them out of the workplace for refusing to sign new contracts amounted to constructive dismissal and unfair termination for want of substantive and procedural fairness

Reasoning

The respondent outsourced cleaning services without consulting staff, gave them one day to sign contracts with Rene Superclean Services Limited, and chased them from the premises when they refused. The claimants' uncontroverted evidence showed no termination letters, reasons or notice. This conduct constituted a repudiatory breach amounting to constructive dismissal and unfair termination contrary to sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act and Article 41 of the Constitution.

p. 8
03

Remedies entitlement

Holding

The eleven claimants were entitled to notice pay, house allowance for duration served, modest compensation (one or two months' salary) and certificates of service; leave, overtime and public holiday claims failed for want of proof

Reasoning

The court applied section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act in assessing compensation, considering duration of service and the claimants' own failure to take proactive steps to engage the respondent. House allowance was mandatory under section 31. Overtime and public holiday claims lacked evidential support, as did the 12-month maximum compensation claim.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer may not transfer employees to an outsourcing agency without the express acceptance of each affected employee, and must settle all outstanding obligations before outsourcing takes effect
  • Forcing employees out of the workplace for refusing to sign new contracts amounts to a repudiatory breach and constructive dismissal
  • House allowance is a statutory right under section 31 of the Employment Act, and employers may satisfy it by providing housing, paying house allowance, or paying a consolidated salary
  • Change management is a process requiring employer consultation and preparation of employees, not an event imposed on them

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the eleven (11) successful claimants for one month's salary in lieu of notice, house allowance for the duration served, damages for unfair termination (two months' gross salary for those who served 2 years or more, one month for those who served less), and certificates of service, as itemised per claimant
  2. 2.Claim of the 6th claimant (Martin Ndunda Muia) dismissed; he is entitled only to a certificate of service
  3. 3.Claim of the 13th claimant (Kennedy Omwoso Olanda) withdrawn by his counsel on record
  4. 4.Costs of the suit awarded to the eleven (11) successful claimants
  5. 5.Interest at court rates till payment in full

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsections 31, 41, 45, 49(1)(c)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41

Cases cited (8)

  • Donald Odeke =vs= Fidelity Security Limited
    [2016] eKLR
  • Stanley Mwangi Gachungu & another =vs= Barclays Bank
    [2019] eKLR
  • Walter Ogal Anuro =vs= Teachers Service Commission
    [2013] eKLR
  • Elizabeth Washeke and 62 others =v= Airtel Networks (K) Limited and Spanco (K) Limited
    [2013] eKLR
  • Wrigley Company (East Africa) Limited =vs= Attorney General & 3 others
    {2013} eKLR
  • Western Excavating ECC Limited =vs= Sharp
    [1978] 2 WLR 344
  • Cocacola East & Central African Limited =Vs= Maria Kagai Ligaga
    [2015] eKLR
  • Grain Pro Kenya Inc. Limited =v= Andrew Waithaka Kiragu
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 and Article 41 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "James Kioko Mwanthi & 12 others v Athi River Shalom Community Hospital (Cause 1062 of 2017)  (Employment and Labour) [2021] KEELRC 690 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELRC Cause (memorandum of claim dated 8th June 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/690/eng@2021-10-21

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