Stephenson Mbithi Ndoni v S.C.L.P. S Samaj School [2022] KEELRC 540 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent had valid and fair reasons to dismiss the claimant
Yes - substantive justification was established on a balance of probability given the claimant's contradictory accounts and the disappearance of the cables
The dismissal letter cited theft of telephone cables. The claimant's court testimony (cables placed on the ground) departed from his written statement (placed in the school bus), casting doubt on his version. The cables could not be traced the following day, lending credence to the respondent's account. Applying the balance-of-probability standard under sections 43 and 45, the respondent had reasonable and sufficient grounds; the dishonesty breached the trust inherent in the employment relationship.
Whether the claimant was accorded a fair hearing before dismissal
No - the dismissal was procedurally flawed and unlawful
Section 41 of the Employment Act sets mandatory minimum procedural standards. The respondent failed to prove service of the show cause letter, no disciplinary hearing was convened, and the dismissal letter made no reference to any notice or the claimant's explanation. Absence of hearing rendered the dismissal unprocedural and unlawful notwithstanding substantive justification.
Entitlement to reliefs
Notice pay, 24 days' salary for November 2015 and 5 months' compensation awarded; leave and overtime claims time-barred
Having found procedural unfairness, the court awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice under section 35(1)(c), unpaid salary for November 2015, and compensatory damages of five months' gross salary. Claims for leave from 2006-2007 and overtime were barred by section 90 of the Employment Act as the suit was filed beyond the 12-month limitation after dismissal.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in employment termination is on a balance of probability and an employer need only prove reasons it genuinely believed to exist
- Section 41 of the Employment Act prescribes the minimum standards of a fair procedure which an employer may only enhance, not diminish
- A court should not lightly interfere with a sanction imposed by an employer if the sanction was reasonable
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the claimant against the respondent
- 2.One month's salary in lieu of notice: Kshs 28,500.00
- 3.Salary for 24 days in November 2015: Kshs 22,800.00
- 4.Compensation equivalent to 5 months' gross salary: Kshs 142,500.00
- 5.Total award of Kshs 193,800.00
- 6.Interest at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 7.Respondent to bear the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment claims (Employment Act; claim for unfair termination)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stephenson Mbithi Ndoni v S.C.L.P. S Samaj School [2022] KEELRC 540 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No 361 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/540/eng@2022-03-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.