Nicholas Muindi & 4 others v Eastern Maths International Company Limited Respondent [2022] KEELRC 271 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that firing five workers for refusing to sign new contracts, without notice or a hearing, was unfair and awarded them full terminal benefits plus compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Lawfulness and fairness of the summary dismissal
The dismissal was unlawful and unfair as it was done without notice, hearing or valid reason, violating sections 28, 31, 36, 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007.
The claimants' uncontroverted evidence showed they were dismissed on 1st March 2015 after refusing to sign new contracts with an outsourcing firm, Flexi Personnel, without notice, notice to show cause, a hearing or any valid reason. The respondent did not appear at the hearing, so the facts remained uncontested and were proved on a balance of probabilities.
Entitlement to terminal benefits
The claimants proved they were owed and not paid notice pay, house allowance, annual leave and service pay, which the Court awarded.
The respondent failed to contest the facts tendered in evidence. On a balance of probabilities the Court found the claimants were owed unpaid terminal benefits set out in paragraph 22 of the witness affidavit, comprising notice pay, house allowance, annual leave not taken and service pay, and awarded them as itemised in the final judgment.
Quantum of compensation under Section 49 Employment Act
Compensation awarded ranged from two to three months' salary depending on length of service, guided by the Kenfreight case.
Applying Section 49(1)(c) and (4), the Court considered length of service (about 9 months to one year and four months), the absence of contribution by the claimants to the dismissal, the suddenness of the loss, and treated the employer's attempt to impose new terms of service as an aggravating factor, awarding two to three months' salary per claimant.
Legal principles established
#- Summary dismissal without notice, notice to show cause, a hearing and a valid reason violates sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007 and is unlawful and unfair
- Unfairly dismissed employees who did not contribute to the dismissal and whose employer tried to impose new terms of service merit compensation under Section 49(1)(c) and (4) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the summary dismissal of the claimants on 1st March 2015 was unlawful and unfair
- 2.Judgment entered for the claimants for terminal benefits and compensation as itemised per claimant (notice pay, house allowance, annual leave, service pay where applicable, and compensation)
- 3.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 4.Costs of the suit awarded to the claimants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007; Employment and Labour Relations Court Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nicholas Muindi & 4 others v Eastern Maths International Company Limited Respondent [2022] KEELRC 271 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/271/eng@2022-04-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.