Joshua Onduru Nyayiera v Egerton University [2021] KEELRC 1003 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a dismissed Egerton University worker over Kshs. 800,000 because his employer could not prove why it fired him.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of reasons for dismissal
The respondent failed to prove valid reasons for the dismissal; the allegations of unauthorized entry and CCTV tampering were not established by evidence before the court
The dismissal letter cited gross misconduct, but the minutes of the disciplinary hearing were incomplete and incoherent, and no evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged offences was laid before the court. Section 43 of the Employment Act places the burden of proving reasons for termination on the employer, and where the employer fails, the termination is deemed unfair under section 45.
Due process in disciplinary proceedings
The disciplinary process did not satisfy section 41 of the Employment Act; the minutes were unclear, the petitioner's name was missing from the attendees list, and CCTV footage was examined in his absence
Section 41 requires the employer to explain the reasons for termination and to hear the employee's representations. The minutes produced were not flowing and ran unevenly; it was unclear whether the petitioner attended or whether a witness was cross-examined. Evidence from CCTV footage was taken in the petitioner's absence and its contents were never disclosed to the court.
Violation of constitutional rights (Articles 27, 41, 50(1))
Articles 41 (fair labour practices) and 50(1) (fair hearing) were infringed; Article 27 was not violated
Having found the dismissal was without valid reasons and without due process, the court held that the right to fair labour practices and the right to a fair hearing were infringed. However, the petitioner did not explain how he was discriminated against or in relation to whom, so no breach of the equality guarantee under Article 27 was established.
Remedies for unfair dismissal and constitutional violations
Damages equivalent to 10 months' salary (Kshs. 307,300) for unfair dismissal plus Kshs. 500,000 for breach of constitutional rights, total Kshs. 807,300, less statutory deductions
The court found for the petitioner on the unfair termination claim and on the constitutional violations, exercising discretion to award the equivalent of 10 months' gross salary based on his salary of Kshs. 30,730, and separate constitutional damages of Kshs. 500,000. Costs and interest were also granted.
Legal principles established
#- An employer bears the burden of proving valid reasons for termination; failure to do so renders the termination unfair
- Where disciplinary minutes are incomplete and evidence (such as CCTV footage) was considered in the employee's absence, the employer has not demonstrated that a fair hearing was accorded
Court orders
#- 1.Award of damages equivalent to 10 months' salary (Kshs. 307,300) for unfair dismissal, subject to statutory deductions
- 2.Award of Kshs. 500,000 as damages for breach of constitutional rights
- 3.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 10, 20, 22, 23 and 165 of the Constitution; Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joshua Onduru Nyayiera v Egerton University [2021] KEELRC 1003 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Petition No. 18 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1003/eng@2021-09-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.