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 AllowedCause No. 136 of 2014· [2022] KEELRC 1037 (KLR)

Peter Maina Miruiki v Vigilance Security Services Ltd [2022] KEELRC 1037 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 January 2022
HWHellen WasilwaDND. Nderitu
1,158 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent as a night guard in Nakuru from January 2013 on a monthly salary of Kshs. 6,500, was injured on 10th July 2013 while guarding Mann C.K Patel Building. He alleged he was given sick off by his employer, received his July salary, but was not paid from August to December 2013, and that when he approached the respondent's manager he was told his services were no longer needed. He claimed unfair termination contrary to the Employment Act and the ILO Convention No. 158, seeking notice pay, unpaid salary, underpayments, overtime, off duty and public holiday pay, pro-rata leave and compensation under section 49(1)(c). The respondent denied unfair termination, asserting the claimant absconded duty after hiring a lift, and counterclaimed three months' salary for breach of contract. At the hearing on 28th October 2021 the claimant testified and adopted his witness statement; the respondent adduced no evidence, its advocate having lost contact with the client. The claimant's case therefore remained uncontroverted. Relying on section 43 and 45 of the Employment Act and the burden-of-proof principle from Rashid Jeneby v Prime Bank Limited, the court found the termination unlawful and unfair. It awarded one month's notice pay, five months' unpaid salary, eight months' compensation for unlawful termination, underpayment of wages as pleaded and leave pay for eight months, totalling Kshs. 221,880, dismissing the rest of the claim as unproved. The respondent was ordered to pay costs plus interest at court rates.

Key legal issues

#
01

Unfair termination while on sick off

Holding

The court found the claimant was dismissed while on sick off and that the termination was unlawful

Reasoning

The claimant testified he was injured on duty on 10th July 2013 and later dismissed while recuperating. The respondent entered appearance and filed a response but adduced no evidence at hearing, so the claimant's evidence that he was dismissed while on sick off went unchallenged. Applying sections 43, 45 and 41 of the Employment Act and the burden-of-proof principle in Rashid Jeneby, the court found no valid reason or fair procedure was demonstrated and awarded notice pay, the 5 months' unpaid salary, and 8 months' compensation.

p. 2
02

Quantum of the award

Holding

The court awarded Kshs. 221,880 being notice pay, 5 months' salary, 8 months' compensation for unlawful termination, underpayment of wages and leave pay

Reasoning

The court assessed each head: one month's salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 11,633.55; five months' salary unpaid while the claimant was on sick off; compensation equivalent to 8 months under section 49(1)(c); underpayment of wages as pleaded; and pro-rata leave for 8 months. The remaining heads (overtime, off duties, public holidays) were found not proved.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The burden is on the employer to demonstrate on a balance of probability a valid reason for termination (as adopted from Rashid Jeneby v Prime Bank Limited)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Respondent to pay the claimant one month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 11,633.55
  2. 2.Respondent to pay salary for 5 months not paid while on sick off, Kshs. 58,167.75
  3. 3.Respondent to pay compensation for unlawful termination equivalent to 8 months' salary, Kshs. 93,068.40
  4. 4.Respondent to pay underpayment of wages as pleaded, Kshs. 52,180.40
  5. 5.Respondent to pay leave for 8 months, Kshs. 6,830
  6. 6.Total award of Kshs. 221,880
  7. 7.Rest of the claim not proved and is dismissed
  8. 8.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 43
  • Employment Actsection 41
  • Employment Actsection 45
  • Employment Actsection 49(1)(c)
  • ILO Convention of 1982 No. 158Article 6(1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Rashid Jeneby V Prime Bank Limited
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (employment dispute under the Employment Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Peter Maina Miruiki v Vigilance Security Services Ltd [2022] KEELRC 1037 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No. 136 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1037/eng@2022-01-21

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