Christopher Nguru Warutere v Kenya Airports Authority (KAA) [2021] KEELRC 1830 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya Airports Authority must pay a dismissed engineer Kshs 5.5 million because it couldn't prove why it fired him or follow fair procedures.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the reason for termination
The respondent failed to prove on a balance of probability that the reason for dismissal was valid; the EACC findings corroborated the claimant's case
The Board cited gross misconduct but produced no disciplinary proceedings or evidence that the claimant flouted procurement law. The written response relied on was found polite and proper. The EACC later found the procurement lawful and closed the inquiry file, corroborating the claimant's innocence. Under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act the dismissal was therefore unfair.
Fairness of the procedure followed
The procedure was unfair: the invitation letter did not disclose the right to accompaniment, the hearing was held after hours until past 10 pm, the decision was first communicated through the press, and no certificate of service was issued
Although interdiction, show cause and a hearing were accorded, the court found multiple procedural defects. Keeping the employee waiting until 8 pm and hearing the case at night was oppressive; communication via press and email was unfair; and section 51 was breached by failure to issue a certificate of service.
Defamation claim
Struck out as not properly pleaded
The claim was contained in a single paragraph, without the words complained of, dates of publication, or particulars of ordinary meaning or innuendo, consistent with the requirement under Order 2 rule 7(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules relied on by the respondent.
Remedies
Reinstatement barred by the three-year limit; three months' notice pay and 12 months' compensation awarded
Given about 15 years of unblemished service without any warning letter and no contributory misconduct, the maximum compensation of 12 months' salary under section 49(1) was warranted, alongside three months' notice pay per the contract.
Legal principles established
#- Where the employer fails to prove the reason for dismissing an employee, the dismissal is unfair under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
- A disciplinary hearing conducted late after working hours, without informing the employee of the right to be accompanied, and with the decision communicated through the press, is not a fair procedure
- A defamation claim must specifically plead the words complained of, dates of publication and whether the claim arises from ordinary meaning or innuendo
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the dismissal of the claimant by the respondent was wrongful and without justification
- 2.Judgment for the claimant in the sum of Kshs 1,113,437.37 as salary in lieu of notice
- 3.Compensation of 12 months' salary of Kshs 4,453,749.48 for wrongful and unjustified dismissal, total award Kshs 5,567,186.85, subject to statutory deductions
- 4.Costs of the suit to the claimant
- 5.Interest at court rate from the date of judgment
- 6.Striking out of the claim for defamation for failure to plead it properly
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, section 12 (Employment Act claims)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Christopher Nguru Warutere v Kenya Airports Authority (KAA) [2021] KEELRC 1830 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment (ELRC claim filed 23.5.2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1830/eng@2021-04-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.