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 AllowedBungoma Cause No. 27 and 28 of 2018 (consolidated, Cause No. 27 as Lead file)· [2021] KEELRC 1879 (KLR)

Eliza Jemutai Cheboi v Board of Management Kamoi Secondary School [2021] KEELRC 1879 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 April 2021
MNMATHEWS N. NDUMA
2,521 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 ruled two school staff were unfairly sacked without notice or charges, awarding them over KShs 1.2 million plus costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Two consolidated Employment and Labour Relations Court causes (Bungoma Cause Nos. 27 and 28 of 2018, Cause 27 as lead file) were brought by Eliza Jemutai Cheboi, a secretary, and Sammy Kiptoo Kipkore, a watchman, against their former employer, a public school. Both were terminated on 6/2/2018 after a 're-evaluation' exercise of support staff held on 3/2/2018, on grounds of unsuitability. The claimants alleged the exercise was a sham; the claimant Cheboi additionally alleged victimization after refusing the Principal's sexual advances. The respondent, through its Principal (R.W.1), maintained the claimants were given an opportunity to respond to issues of lateness, poor working relationships and loss of school items. The court framed two issues: whether the terminations were for valid reasons following fair procedure, and entitlement to reliefs. It found the claimants were ambushed with undocumented charges, given no notices to show cause, and that the respondent failed to prove valid reasons, violating Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act and Articles 232, 236 and 41 of the Constitution, calling the process 'mob lynching' by a public employer. Reinstatement was declined as impracticable; compensation of 8 months' salary (Cheboi) and 10 months' salary (Kipkore) was awarded, plus house allowance, underpayments, overtime and leave limited to three years under Section 90, certificates of service, interest, and costs of the consolidated suits. Judgment was delivered online pursuant to COVID-19 directives.

Key legal issues

#
01

Fair procedure for termination under Section 41 of the Employment Act

Holding

The termination procedure was unfair because the claimants were ambushed with undocumented charges at a vetting meeting without prior notice, charges or notices to show cause

Reasoning

R.W.1's own testimony showed the claimants were told of a vetting exercise to get value for money, not of a disciplinary process. They received no notices to show cause and only they, out of all support staff, were asked to respond to undocumented charges before being terminated for unsatisfactory answers.

p. 3
02

Valid reason for termination under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act

Holding

The respondent failed to prove valid reasons for the terminations, which the court characterized as a sham process

Reasoning

The allegations of misconduct (lateness, poor relationships for C.W.1; loss of school items for C.W.2) were undocumented and unproven. The court accepted the claimants' evidence that the re-evaluation exercise was a sham intended to eliminate targeted staff, and the respondent is a public body bound by Chapter 13 and Article 232 values.

p. 3
03

Appropriate remedy for unfair termination

Holding

Reinstatement refused; compensation of 8 months' salary for C.W.1 (about 8 years' service) and 10 months' salary for C.W.2 (about 10 years' service) awarded under Section 49(1)(c) and (4)

Reasoning

The court considered the small size of the institution making relationships untenable, the long service, lack of contribution to termination, underpayment and victimization, and applied comparable awards of 8-12 months' salary in the authorities cited.

p. 4
04

Untested claims for house allowance, underpayment, NSSF dues, leave and overtime

Holding

Awarded as pleaded and uncontroverted, but limited to the three years preceding suit under Section 90

Reasoning

R.W.1 offered no answer to these claims, so the court accepted them, applying the statutory three-year limitation to older claims.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer who has not notified an employee of charges or issued notices to show cause has failed to institute disciplinary action through a fair procedure under Section 41 of the Employment Act
  • The employer bears the burden of proving valid reasons for termination under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
  • Staff of a public institution are public officers protected by Article 236 of the Constitution and must be treated justly, fairly and with dignity
  • Claims under the Employment Act are limited to three years preceding the filing of suit by dint of Section 90

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the terminations were unlawful and unfair (implicit finding under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act)
  2. 2.Award to Eliza Jemutai Cheboi: House allowance (2015-2018) Kshs.108,248.82; Underpayment (2015-2018) Kshs.272,058.7; 8 months' compensation Kshs.142,783.52; Total Kshs.523,091.04
  3. 3.Award to Sammy Kiptoo Kipkore: House allowance (2015-2018) Kshs.61,278.06; Overtime (2015-2018) Kshs.635,184; Underpayments (2017-2018) Kshs.8,680.4; Leave due (2015-2018) Kshs.17,272.65; Total Kshs.722,415.06
  4. 4.Certificates of Service to both claimants within 30 days of judgment
  5. 5.Interest at court rates from date of judgment till payment in full
  6. 6.Costs of the consolidated suits to the claimants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSections 41, 43(1) and (2), 45, 49(1)(c) and (4), 90
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 232(1), Article 236, Article 41(1) and (2)(a) and (b), Chapter Thirteen, Article 159(2)(d), Article 48
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 18

Cases cited (3)

  • Ken Freight East Africa Limited -vs- Benson K. Nguti
    Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2015
  • Patrick Makau Kyule -vs- Kevian Kenya Limited
  • Juliet Ndanu -vs- East Africa Growers Limited
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (first-instance labour cause)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Eliza Jemutai Cheboi v Board of Management Kamoi Secondary School [2021] KEELRC 1879 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Bungoma Cause No. 27 and 28 of 2018 (consolidated, Cause No. 27 as Lead file). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1879/eng@2021-04-14

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