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 AllowedELRC Cause (Kisumu), Memorandum of Claim dated April 20, 2016· [2022] KEELRC 1111 (KLR)

Nyabali v Mayfair Holdings Limited (Cause 103 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 1111 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 June 2022
CBChristine N. Baari
2,726 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled a manager's dismissal unfair because the employer never gave him a hearing and kept changing its reasons for firing him.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, formerly Sales and Marketing Manager of the Respondent on a salary of Kshs.128,720/-, sued challenging the termination of his employment by letter dated February 5, 2014, seeking a declaration of unfair termination, notice pay, salary for five days worked, leave arrears, pro-rata leave and 12 months' salary as compensation. The Respondent admitted the termination, contending it was for gross misconduct - soliciting money from salesmen and failure to meet targets - following a warning letter dated December 9, 2013, and asserted the Claimant was paid his dues in full. The court framed two issues: whether the termination was unfair and whether remedies were deserved. On procedure, the court found no disciplinary process or hearing preceded the termination; the notice given did not satisfy the irreducible statutory minimums of Section 41 of the Employment Act and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, rendering the termination procedurally unfair. On substance, the reasons for termination varied across the warning letter, the termination letter (which gave none) and the testimony, failing the test of clarity, validity and justification, so the termination was also substantively unfair. On remedies, considering the Claimant's possible contribution to his dismissal and current employment, the court awarded six months' salary (Kshs.772,320/-) rather than the maximum 12 months. It found the notice pay, five days' pay and pro-rata leave already paid but underpaid (computed on Kshs.117,720/- instead of Kshs.128,720/-) and awarded the difference; the one-year leave claim failed as covered by leave taken during the notice period. Judgment was entered for the Claimant at a total of Kshs.791,212.31/-.

Key legal issues

#
01

Procedural fairness of the termination

Holding

The termination was procedurally unfair because the Claimant was not heard as required by Section 41 of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

The termination letter and the Respondent's witnesses disclosed no disciplinary process. Section 41 obliges an employer to explain grounds in a language the employee understands, allow accompaniment, and hear representations. A warning letter followed by notice of termination does not satisfy this statutory minimum, contrary also to Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act.

p. 5
02

Substantive justification of the termination

Holding

The termination was substantively unfair because the reasons given varied at different stages and lacked clarity and specificity.

Reasoning

The warning letter cited inflation of bonuses; the termination letter gave no reasons; witnesses at trial cited soliciting money from salesmen and failure to meet targets. Sections 43 and 45 require the employer to prove valid and fair reasons. The shifting reasons failed the objective test of what a reasonable employer would do.

p. 5
03

Remedies

Holding

Compensation of six months' salary under Section 49, plus underpaid terminal dues recalculated at the correct salary of Kshs.128,720/-; the one-year leave claim failed.

Reasoning

Having served close to two years and possibly contributed to his termination, and being currently employed, the Claimant was not entitled to the maximum 12 months' compensation. Notice pay, five days' salary and pro-rata leave had been paid but were underpaid using Kshs.117,720/- instead of the agreed Kshs.128,720/-; only the difference was due.

Legal principles established

#
  • Termination requires both substantive justification and procedural fairness; notice or payment in lieu alone is insufficient.
  • Section 41 of the Employment Act sets irreducible minimums of fair procedure before termination on grounds of misconduct.
  • Reasons for termination must be clear and specific; varied reasons at different stages render termination substantively unfair.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the Claimant's termination is unfair.
  2. 2.Payment of Six (6) Months' salary in compensation for unfair termination at Kshs.772,320/-
  3. 3.One-month salary in lieu of notice Kshs.11,000/-
  4. 4.Pay for Five days worked Kshs.1,964.31/-
  5. 5.Prorata leave Kshs.5,928/-
  6. 6.Total awarded Kshs.791,212.31/-

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 28 and 47
  • Employment Act, 2007Sections 41, 42(1), 43, 45, 47(5), 49, 49(4), 50
  • Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015Section 4

Cases cited (9)

  • Angela Wokabi Muoki v Tribe Hotel Ltd
    [2016] eKLR
  • Grace Muthoni Muhoro v Githunguri Dairy & Community Sacco Limited Cause No. 933 of 2015
    [2020] eKLR
  • Muchiri v Rev. Bishop Henry Kath and another
    [2014] eKLR
  • British Leyland v Swift
    [1981] IRLR 91
  • Mary Mutanu Mwendwa v Ayuda
    [2013] eKLR
  • Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Meru North Farmers Sacco Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenfreight (EA) Limited v Benson K. Nguti
    [2019] eKLR
  • Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui
    [2019] eKLR
  • Mwanajuma Juma Kunde v KAPS Municipal Parking Services Limited Cause No. 57 of 2012
    [2013] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 and the Constitution (Articles 28 and 47 invoked by the Claimant)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyabali v Mayfair Holdings Limited (Cause 103 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 1111 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELRC Cause (Kisumu), Memorandum of Claim dated April 20, 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1111/eng@2022-06-23

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