Muiruri v Githunguri Dairy Farmers Co-operative Society Limited (Cause 474 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 1231 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a milk company's dismissal unfair because it proved no valid reason and skipped mandatory hearing steps, awarding the employee about Kshs.350,000.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent had a valid and fair reason for the summary dismissal
No valid reason was established; the alleged insubordination was uncorroborated and the alleged instructor was the Claimant's junior and did not testify
The respondent relied on Section 44(4)(c) and (e) of the Employment Act. However, no evidence showed who instructed the Claimant to write a statement; the letters of David Muchiri and Kevin Ndereba Kirai were uncorroborated, Muchiri did not testify, and he was the Claimant's supervisee, not a person in authority. No security investigation report was availed despite RWI's admission that security would prepare one. The grounds for dismissal were therefore unproven.
Whether the termination procedure complied with Section 41 of the Employment Act
The procedure was flawed; the invitation letter contained no allegations and did not notify the Claimant of his right to be accompanied, and minutes of the board meeting were not filed
The letter of 16th July 2015 had two sentences, set out no allegations, and was never delivered to the Claimant, who was notified by phone. He was not informed of his entitlement to be accompanied by a colleague, yet his juniors attended the meeting. The meeting minutes RWI said existed were not filed, leaving it unclear what transpired, what representations were made, or what the Board decided. These failures breach the Section 41 threshold.
Effect of the entitlement form signed by the Claimant on 24th July 2015
The form was of no consequence as the other parties to the proposed agreement did not sign it
The court noted that neither party addressed the entitlement form in evidence or submissions. The document, dated 24th July 2015, was signed only by the Claimant and not by the other parties to the proposed agreement, making it incomplete. It therefore had no bearing on the Claimant's case and did not operate as a waiver or settlement of his claims.
What reliefs the Claimant is entitled to
Declaration of unfair dismissal, one month's salary in lieu of notice and 6 months' compensation granted; terminal dues and gratuity declined
Having found the dismissal unjustified and procedurally flawed, the court invoked Section 49(1) of the Employment Act. In assessing quantum it considered the 7 years and 9 months of service, the Claimant's unblemished record and rise from Milk Grader to supervisor, and the absence of an appeal or desire to return. It awarded Kshs.50,000/= in lieu of notice and Kshs.300,000/= being six months' salary, plus costs and interest.
Legal principles established
#- A fair termination must be both substantively justifiable and procedurally fair
- Section 41 of the Employment Act prescribes a mandatory four-element procedure: explanation of grounds in a language the employee understands, the reason for termination, entitlement to be accompanied by a fellow employee, and hearing of representations
- An employer bears the burden on a balance of probability to prove a fair and valid reason for termination; uncorroborated instructions from a subordinate who does not testify do not suffice
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the Claimant's dismissal was unfair and unlawful
- 2.One month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs.50,000/=
- 3.Equivalent of 6 months' compensation of Kshs.300,000/=
- 4.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
- 5.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (first-instance employment claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muiruri v Githunguri Dairy Farmers Co-operative Society Limited (Cause 474 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 1231 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No 474 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1231/eng@2022-07-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.