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 AllowedNot stated in the judgment (memorandum of claim dated 23rd November, 2016)· [2022] KEELRC 611 (KLR)

William Muhando Munda v Inter Security Services Limited [2022] KEELRC 611 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
10 February 2022
AMAnna Ngibuini Mwaure
1,120 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled an employee was unlawfully fired because the employer couldn't prove he deserted his job, awarding him pay and costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent from April 2005, claimed he was summarily and unjustifiably dismissed in November 2014 on the ground that there was no work, and sought a declaration that his dismissal was unlawful plus terminal dues of Kshs.820,328, interest and costs. The Respondent asserted that the Claimant first absconded in October 2013, resurfaced in April 2014, was re-employed on fresh terms, then failed to report for duty again in November 2014 and could not be traced; it counterclaimed for two months' salary in lieu of notice, refund of Kshs.6,610 and VAT for a uniform. The court framed three issues: whether the termination was unlawful, whether the Claimant absconded, and entitlement to reliefs. Relying on Ronaldo N. Daudi v Tornado Carriers Limited, the court held that an employer alleging desertion must show efforts to reach the employee and put them on notice of contemplated termination. The Respondent had no written records of the alleged 2014 desertion, unlike the 2013 incident documented in an apology letter, and convened no disciplinary meeting as required by Section 41 of the Employment Act. The court found the Claimant was unlawfully terminated. Only notice pay of Kshs.10,478 and two months' compensation of Kshs.20,956 were proved; claims for unpaid leave, severance pay and leave allowance were disallowed for want of proof. Total award of Kshs.31,434 with interest from the date of judgment; costs to the Claimant. Judgment delivered virtually in Nairobi on 10th February 2022 under COVID-19 directions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant absconded from employment in November 2014

Holding

The court found the Respondent produced no oral or written evidence of desertion and made no effort to contact the Claimant, so the desertion claim failed

Reasoning

The Respondent had no records showing the Claimant failed to report for duty. Unlike the 2013 desertion, where the Claimant wrote a letter of apology, there was no documentation for the alleged 2014 desertion. Citing Ronaldo N. Daudi v Tornado Carriers Limited, the court held an employer alleging desertion must demonstrate efforts to reach the employee. The only contact was a call informing the Claimant the company had rejected him.

p. 2
02

Whether the termination was lawful and procedurally fair

Holding

The termination was unlawful, lacking justifiable reason and contrary to Section 41 of the Employment Act

Reasoning

The Respondent did not convene a disciplinary meeting or give the Claimant an opportunity to defend himself before a witness of his choice as required by Section 41 of the Employment Act. With conflicting accounts and no viable reason shown for the termination, the court found the dismissal unlawful.

p. 2
03

What remedies were available

Holding

Only one month's notice pay and two months' compensation were proved and awarded; leave and severance claims failed for want of proof

Reasoning

Having found unlawful termination, the court awarded one month's pay in lieu of notice and two months' compensation as sufficient damages. Claims for unpaid leave, severance pay and leave allowance were disallowed because they were not proved.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer alleging desertion must show efforts made to reach the employee and put them on notice that termination on that ground is under consideration
  • Before termination on grounds of misconduct, poor performance or incapacity, an employer must explain the reasons to the employee in a language he understands, in the presence of a fellow employee or shop floor union representative (Section 41, Employment Act)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.One month pay in lieu of notice of Kshs.10,478 awarded to the Claimant
  2. 2.Two months' compensation of Kshs.20,956 awarded to the Claimant
  3. 3.Total award of Kshs.31,434 plus interest at court rates from date of Judgment until full payment
  4. 4.Unpaid leave, severance pay and unpaid leave allowance claims disallowed as not proved
  5. 5.Costs awarded to the Claimant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Section 1B

Cases cited (1)

  • RONALDO N. DAUDI VS TORNADO CARRIERS LIMITED
    Cause No.238 of 2016
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (Employment and Labour Relations Court); Employment Act, Section 41

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "William Muhando Munda v Inter Security Services Limited [2022] KEELRC 611 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment (memorandum of claim dated 23rd November, 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/611/eng@2022-02-10

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