Langat v County Public Service Board Kericho County & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E016 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 164 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant's appointment as Chief Officer was illegal for non-compliance with sections 45 and 46 of the County Governments Act
The appointment was lawful; the respondents produced no pleadings or evidence to prove illegality, and the County Public Service Board did not deny participating in the recruitment
The respondent's contention that the appointment breached section 45 of the County Governments Act was raised only in submissions without a defence or affidavit. The court held such allegations were mere statements from the bar, and absent evidence from the Governor or the Board, found the claimant was lawfully appointed under section 45.
Whether the termination was grounded on valid and fair reasons
The dismissal was unfair because the respondent failed to discharge the burden under sections 43 and 45 of proving valid and fair reasons
The termination letter did not state reasons; the charges in the disciplinary letter were generalised. The claimant's unrebutted evidence showed his request for particulars and supporting documents was ignored. Under section 43, the employer must prove reasons for termination, failing which the termination is deemed unfair.
Whether a fair procedure was followed under section 41 of the Employment Act
Fair procedure was not followed; the claimant was denied particulars and supporting documents needed to defend himself
The employer served a show cause letter with generalised allegations; the claimant requested particulars and documentary evidence but received none, then faced a disciplinary committee that ignored his request. The court agreed the dismissal was therefore not in accordance with fair procedure.
What reliefs flow from the unfair termination
Declaration of unfair termination, one month's notice pay, 4 months' salary compensation, Certificate of Service, costs and interest; salary for the unexpired contract refused on grounds of mitigation
Having found no valid reason and no fair procedure, the court declared the dismissal unlawful. It awarded 4 months' salary rather than the maximum 12 months because the claimant obtained alternative employment, plus notice pay, and declined the remaining contract salary since the loss was mitigated.
Legal principles established
#- Under section 43 of the Employment Act the employer bears the burden of proving the reasons for termination, failing which the termination is deemed unfair
- An employer must accord an employee fair procedure under section 41, including explaining the reasons and furnishing particulars and supporting documents where requested, before termination
- Unsubstantiated submissions by counsel without pleadings or evidence cannot establish that an appointment was illegal
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the dismissal of the claimant was unfair and therefore unlawful
- 2.One month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 199,110
- 3.Compensation for unfair termination of 4 months' salary, Kshs 796,440 (total award Kshs 995,550)
- 4.Claimant to be issued with a Certificate of Service
- 5.Awards subject to statutory deductions
- 6.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment
- 7.Costs of the suit to the claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act No. 11 of 2007 (suit for unfair termination; Certificate of Service claimed under section 77)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Langat v County Public Service Board Kericho County & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E016 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 164 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/164/eng@2022-04-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.