Mayabilo v Goodlife Pharmacy Limited (Cause 580 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 4115 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that an employee who refused to accept warning letters committed gross misconduct, so his dismissal was lawful, but his earned wages still had to be paid.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether refusal to accept warning letters amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal
Yes; the claimant's refusal to accept lawful instructions was gross misconduct and the summary dismissal was justified
The court found the claimant admitted receiving and refusing to sign warning letters. Citing section 44(4)(e) of the Employment Act and the KPAWU and Anthony Korir authorities, it held refusal of lawful instructions is gross misconduct. The show cause notice was justified under section 41(2), the claimant failed to show good cause, and termination was warranted.
Whether the claimant was entitled to unpaid salary increments
No; the increments were tied to promotions and transfers which the claimant declined and which were rescinded
The employer's records under section 10(6) and (7) showed the claimant declined transfers to Lunga Lunga and T-Mall branches for personal reasons, and the wage increases reverted. He could not claim wages over positions he himself declined.
Whether the claimant was entitled to wages for November 2016 to March 2017
Partially; wages for the period of employment until summary dismissal on December 7, 2016 are payable, tabulated at the due wage
The court held employment terminated by summary dismissal on December 7, 2016, so wages were due up to that date, but the claimant applied the wage at an upper limit beyond his entitlement after declining a transfer. Wages for absence without service are not payable under section 19(1)(c).
Legal principles established
#- An employee who fails, refuses or ignores lawful instructions of an employer commits gross misconduct under section 44(4)(e) of the Employment Act, 2007, justifying summary dismissal
- The employer is the custodian of employment records under section 10(6) and (7) of the Employment Act, 2007
- Under section 19(1)(c) of the Employment Act, 2007 an employer is not bound to pay wages for days the employee is absent without good cause
Court orders
#- 1.Payment of due wages for the period November 2016 to March 2017, tabulated and paid within 30 days, failing which the same shall accrue interest
- 2.All other claims dismissed
- 3.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment claim under the Employment Act, 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mayabilo v Goodlife Pharmacy Limited (Cause 580 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 4115 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/4115/eng@2022-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.