Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause 2347 of 2017· [2022] KEELRC 743 (KLR)

Zeddy Cheronoh Sambu v National Oil Corporation of Kenya [2022] KEELRC 743 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 February 2022
4,789 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that even probationary employees must be given a fair hearing before dismissal, awarding the worker Kshs.810,000.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant was employed by the National Oil Corporation of Kenya on 15th May 2017 as Corporate Affairs Manager and was summarily terminated on 26th September 2017, during her six-month probationary period, on the ground that she had given false information about her previous salary at KENGEN (quoting Kshs.385,000/- against an actual gross salary of Kshs.328,748/-). She claimed unfair and unlawful termination, seeking reinstatement or alternatively notice pay and twelve months' compensation totalling Kshs.5,265,000/-. The Respondent maintained that termination of a probationary contract required no hearing or valid reason under Section 42 of the Employment Act, and that the Claimant had breached its values by providing false information. The Court framed three issues: probationary status, fairness of termination, and entitlement to reliefs. It found the Claimant was on probation but, following Monica Munira Kibuchi & 6 others v Mount Kenya University, held that Section 42(1) of the Employment Act was null and void to the extent it excluded probationary employees from Section 41 safeguards; the Respondent was therefore obliged to afford a hearing, which it did not. The termination was also in breach of the contractual entitlement to one month's notice. However, the Respondent had substantively justifiable reason to terminate given the admitted false salary information. Judgment was entered for the Claimant for Kshs.810,000/- (one month's notice pay plus one month's compensation under Section 49(1)(c)), with costs and interest. Reinstatement was declined as unavailable after the lapse of time under Section 12(3)(vii) of the ELRC Act, and the bulk of the compensation claim failed because the Claimant substantially contributed to her termination.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant was serving a probationary contract at termination

Holding

The Court found the Claimant was on probation at the date of termination

Reasoning

Section 2 of the Employment Act defines a probationary contract as one of not more than twelve months, in writing and expressly stating it is for a probationary period. Clause 7 of the appointment letter placed the Claimant on probation for the first six months. She was terminated after serving four months and 11 days, within the probationary period.

p. 5
02

Whether there was substantive justification for termination

Holding

The Respondent had a justifiable reason to terminate the Claimant for giving false information about her previous salary

Reasoning

The Claimant admitted on cross-examination that she gave an estimate of Kshs.385,000/- when her gross salary at KENGEN was Kshs.328,748/-. The April payslip she relied on included a one-off leave allowance. The reference check confirmed the true figure, and even without interview minutes, the evidence established she gave false information.

p. 5
03

Whether the termination was procedurally fair

Holding

The termination was procedurally flawed because the Respondent did not accord the Claimant a hearing under Section 41 nor comply with the contractual notice provision

Reasoning

Following Monica Munira Kibuchi, Section 42(1) was declared null and void to the extent it excluded probationary employees from Section 41 safeguards. The Respondent was therefore obliged to afford the Claimant a hearing. Further, paragraph 1.8 of the Employee Handbook and Clause 7 of the appointment letter required one month's notice or pay in lieu, which was not given, breaching the contract.

p. 6
04

Appropriate remedies

Holding

Declaration of unfair termination, one month's pay in lieu of notice and one month's salary as compensation; reinstatement declined

Reasoning

Reinstatement is discretionary and unavailable after the lapse of time under Section 12(3)(vii) of the ELRC Act. The Claimant was entitled to one month's notice pay. For compensation under Section 49(1)(c), the Court considered the short length of service (four months) and the Claimant's contribution to the termination through false information, awarding the equivalent of one month's salary.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Section 42(1) of the Employment Act, having been declared null and void to the extent it excluded probationary employees from Section 41, an employer terminating a probationary contract is bound to follow the procedural requirements of Section 41
  • Breach of the contractual notice provision in a probationary contract is remediable by contractual damages, not statutory compensation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the Claimant suffered unfair and unlawful dismissal by the Respondent
  2. 2.Judgment for the Claimant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs.810,000/- comprising one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs.405,000/-) and one month's salary as compensation under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act (Kshs.405,000/-)
  3. 3.Interest at Court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
  4. 4.Costs of the suit to the Claimant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSections 2, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49(1)(c)
  • Fair Administrative Actions ActSection 4
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12(3)(vii)
  • Public Officer Ethics Act
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 41, 47

Cases cited (10)

  • Charles Muema Munuve & Another v Safaricom PLC
    [2021] eKLR
  • Abubakar Ali v Central Electricals International Ltd
    [2019] eKLR
  • Stephen Munyao Kini v Gulf Stream Investments Limited
    [2019] eKLR
  • Carole Nyambura Thiga v Oxfam
    [2013] eKLR
  • John Muthomi Mathiu v Mastermind Tobacco (K) Limited
    [2018] eKLR
  • Danish Jalang’o & another v Amicabre Travel Services Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Christopher Kisia Kivango v Amicabre Travel Services Ltd
    [2014] eKLR
  • Evans Kiage Onchwari v Hotel Ambassadeur Nairobi
    [2016] eKLR
  • Monica Munira Kibuchi & 6 others v Mount Kenya University; Attorney General (Interested Party)
    [2021] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Article 162(2) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Zeddy Cheronoh Sambu v National Oil Corporation of Kenya [2022] KEELRC 743 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause 2347 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/743/eng@2022-02-23

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