Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No. 214 of 2017 (lead file, consolidated with two other causes filed 16 May 2017)· [2021] KEELRC 827 (KLR)

Naomi Njoroge & 2 others v Ole-Ken Hotel [2021] KEELRC 827 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
5 October 2021
3,023 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed probationary employees can be sacked without a hearing, but only after 7 days' notice — the hotel had to pay for skipping that step.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Three claimants, all employed by the respondent hotel in early 2017 and all terminated on or about 1st May 2017, consolidated their claims in Cause No. 214 of 2017. They sought declarations that their terminations were unlawful and unfair, 12 months' compensation, notice pay, house allowance, overtime, public holiday and off-day payments, the 3rd claimant's allegedly deducted salary, and certificates of service. The respondent admitted employing them but maintained they were on probation, underperformed, and were terminated lawfully with 7 days' verbal notice under sections 42 and 44 of the Employment Act. The claimants argued the probationary contracts were invalid for not being in writing and relied on the respondent's failure to produce employment records under sections 9, 10 and 74 of the Employment Act, citing Peter Chironda Begonja v Weld-con Limited and Edward Shabaya v K.K Security Limited. The court held that since all claimants served less than six months they remained on probationary appointments, to which section 41's procedural protections do not apply under section 42(1); they were therefore lawfully terminable on 7 days' notice, which was not given. The court awarded each claimant 7 days' salary in lieu of notice and house allowance at 15% of basic salary for the period worked, totalling Kshs. 17,083 for the 1st claimant, Kshs. 12,500 for the 2nd and Kshs. 17,250 for the 3rd, subject to statutory deductions. The claims otherwise failed; the respondent was ordered to pay costs plus interest at court rates from the date of judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimants were on probationary contracts

Holding

Yes; the respondent admitted the claimants were employed on probation and all served less than 6 months

Reasoning

The respondent admitted employing the claimants on probationary terms. Under section 42(2) of the Employment Act, probation may run up to six months. Since each claimant served between one and four months, they were still on probationary appointment and subject to section 42(1), which excludes the procedural protections of section 41 for probationary contracts.

p. 5
02

Whether notice was required before terminating probationary contracts

Holding

Yes; 7 days' notice was required, which was not given

Reasoning

Although probationary employees may be terminated without a hearing under section 41 being inapplicable, they remain entitled to 7 days' notice under section 42(4). The respondent asserted verbal notice was given but its witness had no documentation to prove payment of notice salary, so the court awarded payment in lieu of the notice period.

p. 5
03

Entitlement to house allowance

Holding

Granted at 15% of basic salary for the period worked

Reasoning

The court held the salary paid was not inclusive of house allowance as the respondent contended, and applied the standard 15% formula to each claimant's salary for the months actually worked, awarding Kshs. 11,250, 9,000 and 6,750 respectively.

p. 5
04

Whether failure to issue written contracts of employment was grievous

Holding

Not grievous for the 1st and 3rd claimants, who served under 3 months

Reasoning

Section 9(1) of the Employment Act requires a contract of service to be in writing only where it lasts three months or more. The 1st claimant served two months and the 3rd claimant one month, so the omission was not grievous, although the 2nd claimant served four months.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Termination of a probationary contract is exempt from the procedural fairness requirements of section 41 of the Employment Act, and a probationary employee may be terminated upon 7 days' notice
  • Probationary service may run up to 6 months, and employees who serve less than 6 months remain on probation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Payment of 7 days' salary in lieu of notice: 1st Claimant Kshs. 5,833; 2nd Claimant Kshs. 3,500; 3rd Claimant Kshs. 10,500
  2. 2.Payment of house allowance for the period worked: 1st Claimant Kshs. 11,250; 2nd Claimant Kshs. 9,000; 3rd Claimant Kshs. 6,750
  3. 3.Totals of Kshs. 17,083 (1st Claimant), Kshs. 12,500 (2nd Claimant) and Kshs. 17,250 (3rd Claimant), subject to statutory deductions
  4. 4.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of judgment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsections 2, 9(1), 9(2), 10(6-7), 41, 42(1), 42(2), 42(4), 44(4)(a-c), 45, 45(2), 74
  • Labour Institutions ActRegulation of Wages (Baking, Flour Confectionary and Biscuit Baking Trade) Order, sections 10 and 12 (cited by respondent)

Cases cited (2)

  • Peter Chironda Begonja –v- Weld-con Limited
    [2018] eKLR
  • Edward Shabaya –v- K.K Security Limited
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Labour Institutions Act (specific provision not stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Naomi Njoroge & 2 others v Ole-Ken Hotel [2021] KEELRC 827 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No. 214 of 2017 (lead file, consolidated with two other causes filed 16 May 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/827/eng@2021-10-05

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