Robert Momanyi v Catholic University of Eastern Africa [2021] KEELRC 732 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found a lab technician's dismissal unfair because the university proved no valid reason, but awarded only two months' salary in compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Adequacy of time to respond to a show cause letter under Section 41 of the Employment Act
The Claimant was not denied a hearing; any abridgement of time was attributable to his own delay in collecting the letter, and the letter did not require his response on a fixed date on pain of dismissal
The court noted the discrepancy between the Claimant's pleading (show cause letter of 22nd August 2013) and his testimony (letter received via text on 22nd July, collected on Monday). The letter dated 22nd August would have accorded sufficient time if collected when ready. The Claimant never sought additional time, never requested access to documents, and the letter did not state that failure to respond by 26th August would result in dismissal.
Valid reason for dismissal under Section 45
There was no valid reason for dismissal; the employer failed to prove one, having unreasonably expected one technician to man three labs in different locations
The court accepted the Claimant worked in adverse conditions and found that manning three labs, in simultaneous use and geographically spread across campus, was beyond one technician. The Respondent, absent at the hearing, did not discharge its burden of proving valid reason, rendering the termination substantively unfair under Section 45.
Effect of the Respondent's non-attendance on the standard of proof
The Claimant's unchallenged testimony did not automatically amount to proof; the court still had to weigh the evidence
The court held that pleadings and evidence are not gospel truths; if uncontroverted evidence automatically proved a case, the court would be reduced to a rubber stamp rather than a trier of facts. The court therefore independently assessed the evidence before making findings, some favourable and some adverse to the Claimant.
Alleged violation of the constitutional right to fair labour practices
Not proved; the Claimant documented no grievances with the employer during employment and did not establish infringement
Though the court believed from his demeanour that the Claimant faced adverse conditions, he produced no letter or memo complaining to the employer. Employees must document grievances rather than acquiesce. The claim for constitutional damages therefore failed, and only the statutory claim for unfair termination succeeded.
Legal principles established
#- Uncontroverted evidence is not automatically proved to the required standard; the court must still weigh the evidence and facts
- Employees have an obligation to notify the employer of adverse working conditions rather than silently acquiesce and later complain in court
- An employer who assigns one technician the work of three lab technicians at different locations cannot prove a valid reason for dismissal arising from the resulting inability to perform
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that there was unfair dismissal of the Claimant
- 2.Compensation of 2 months' salary Kshs. 206,836/-
- 3.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
- 4.The compensation sum to be subject to statutory deductions
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment and labour relations claim under the Employment Act, 2007 and Article 41 of the Constitution (right to fair labour practices)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Robert Momanyi v Catholic University of Eastern Africa [2021] KEELRC 732 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No 1814 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/732/eng@2021-10-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.