Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Babs Security Limited [2022] KEELRC 507 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a security firm unfairly sacked two guards for demanding unpaid wages, awarding each over Kshs 102,000.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the grievants' termination was unfair and unlawful
Termination was unfair and unlawful under sections 43(1), 45(2) and 47(5) of the Employment Act.
The respondent filed no defence and did not participate in trial. Under section 43(1) the employer must prove reasons for termination, and under section 45(2) those reasons must be valid and fair, with fair procedure under section 41(1). The grievants testified they were dismissed for demanding unpaid salary. The respondent discharged neither the substantive justification nor procedural limbs, so the termination could not stand.
Remedies for unfair termination and underpayment
Each grievant awarded four months' gross salary as compensatory damages, one month's notice pay, unpaid salaries for May and June 2016, underpaid salary against the minimum wage, and 15% house allowance.
Compensatory damages were guided by the length of the employment. Notice pay flowed from section 35(1)(c). Unpaid salaries were uncontroverted. Legal Notice No. 116 of 2015 fixed the minimum wage at Kshs 12,221.10 exclusive of house allowance, confirming underpayment of Kshs 2,721.10 monthly, and section 31(1) of the Employment Act supported the 15% house allowance rate.
Legal principles established
#- An employer bears the legal burden of proving reasons for termination; failure to discharge it renders the termination unfair under sections 43(1) and 45(2) of the Employment Act.
- Fair termination requires both substantive justification and procedural fairness, including notification of reasons and a hearing under section 41(1) of the Employment Act.
- House allowance is payable at 15% of the salary where not provided, in line with Grain Pro Kenya and the General Wages Order.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the 1st grievant: compensatory damages of Kshs 48,884/=, one month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 12,221/=, salary for May and June 2016 of Kshs 24,442/=, underpaid salary for 3 months of Kshs 8,163/=, unpaid house allowance of Kshs 9,165.75/=, total award of Kshs 102,875.75/=
- 2.Judgment entered in favour of the 2nd grievant: compensatory damages of Kshs 48,884/=, one month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 12,221/=, salary for May and June 2016 of Kshs 24,442/=, underpaid salary for 3 months of Kshs 8,163/=, unpaid house allowance of Kshs 9,165.75/=, total award of Kshs 102,875.75/=
- 3.Interest on each total award at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 4.The grievants entitled to the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court; the claim was brought by the union on behalf of grievant employees following failed conciliation under section 69(b) of the Labour Relations Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Babs Security Limited [2022] KEELRC 507 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No 927 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/507/eng@2022-03-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.