Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment as reproduced· [2021] KEELRC 872 (KLR)

Evanz Mungasia Annoh v Sierra Flora Limited [2021] KEELRC 872 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 September 2021
HWHellen Wasilwa
2,611 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court upheld a flower farm worker's dismissal but ordered the employer to pay Kshs. 459,000 in unpaid house allowance.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a packhouse manager employed from July 2014 at a rising salary culminating in Kshs. 90,750/-, sued for unfair termination and unpaid terminal dues after summary dismissal on 2 November 2018. The dismissal followed market complaints of poor head levels, damaged flowers, poor defoliation, wrong labels and poor documentation. The Respondent issued a show cause letter on 9 October 2018, suspended the Claimant on 13 October 2018, and conducted a disciplinary hearing on 29 October 2018 after an adjournment, dismissing him for wilful neglect of duty under section 44(4)(c) and (g) of the Employment Act. The Respondent counterclaimed for Kshs. 48,937/- erroneously credited to and encashed by the Claimant. The court framed three issues: validity of reasons, procedural fairness, and entitlement to remedies. Applying section 43 of the Employment Act, it found the Respondent genuinely believed the Claimant had failed in duties that were part of his job description, hence valid reasons existed. On procedure, the court found the Claimant was taken through a disciplinary process, was heard, and his complaints about documents and witnesses were unsupported by the minutes. Compensation, notice pay, overtime and a certificate of service were refused. However, the Respondent admitted the Claimant was not effectively housed, so house allowance of Kshs. 459,000/- was awarded for 2015 to 2018. The counterclaim for the duplicate payment of Kshs. 48,937/- was proved. The net award was Kshs. 410,063/- less statutory deductions, with costs of the claim to the Claimant, judgment delivered virtually on 28 September 2021 by Hellen Wasilwa, J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Valid reasons for dismissal

Holding

Respondent had valid reasons based on the claimant's failure to perform his duties

Reasoning

The dismissal letter cited section 44(4)(c) and (g) of the Employment Act for wilful neglect of duty. The complaints raised (poor head levels, damaged flowers, wrong labels) fell squarely within the claimant's job description in his appointment letter. Under section 43, the employer need only prove reasons it genuinely believed to exist at termination.

p. 4
02

Procedural fairness

Holding

The claimant was accorded a fair disciplinary process

Reasoning

The claimant was issued a show cause letter, responded to it, was suspended, and attended a disciplinary hearing on 29 October 2018 where he defended himself. His claims that he was not allowed documents or witnesses did not appear in the minutes, and he presented himself and was heard.

p. 4
03

House allowance

Holding

Claimant entitled to house allowance as he was neither housed nor paid house allowance

Reasoning

Although the contract provided housing, the claimant was given a single room he did not occupy, and the house he was allocated was given to a junior. The respondent admitted he had a house which he gave to his junior, meaning he was not effectively housed. House allowance was therefore awarded for 2015 to 2018.

p. 4
04

Counterclaim for erroneous payment

Holding

Counterclaim proved; claimant to refund Kshs. 48,937/-

Reasoning

The claimant admitted receiving Kshs. 48,937/- at the labour office and again by cheque after his account was erroneously credited. He encashed the cheque without disclosing the earlier receipt and did not refund the sum.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • In any claim arising out of termination, the employer must prove the reason for termination, failing which the termination is unfair
  • Where an employee was not housed and was not paid house allowance, the employer is liable to pay house allowance

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Claimant awarded house allowance of Kshs. 459,000/- from 2015 to 2018
  2. 2.Counterclaim allowed; claimant to refund Kshs. 48,937/- erroneously paid
  3. 3.Net award to claimant of Kshs. 410,063/- less statutory deduction
  4. 4.Respondent to pay costs of the claim

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 40
  • Employment Actsection 44(4)(c) and (g)
  • Employment Actsection 43
  • Employment Actsection 45
  • Employment Actsection 49
  • Employment Actsection 35(1)(c)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v Mununga Leaf Base
    [2013] eKLR
  • Kenfreight (E.A) Ltd v Benson K Nguti
    [2019] eKLR
  • Miriam Siwa v Kenya Post Office Savings Bank Limited
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations dispute under the Employment Act (court's jurisdiction as the final arbiter in labour disputes invoked by claimant)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Evanz Mungasia Annoh v Sierra Flora Limited [2021] KEELRC 872 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment as reproduced. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/872/eng@2021-09-28

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