Makutwa v Godrick & 2 others (Cause 158 of 2013) [2023] KEELRC 603 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld a teacher's dismissal and confirmed that employees cannot claim salaries they would have earned up to retirement.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings
The Commission substantially complied with procedural fairness requirements; service of the invitation through the claimant's last known postal address was effective
The invitation and interdiction letters were sent to the claimant's last known postal address, which had previously been used successfully. The claimant responded in writing to the interdiction and appealed, with the appeal outcome communicated on 1 February 2011. He did not demonstrate a formal appeal to the Teachers Service Appeal Tribunal. The Court found substantial compliance with sections 35(1) and 41 of the Employment Act, the Code of Regulations for Teachers and natural justice.
Substantive fairness and burden of proof
The Commission proved valid and fair reasons for dismissal based on the claimant's own admitted statement
Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act place the burden on the employer to prove validity and fairness of reasons. The claimant's 16 October 2009 statement contained admissions of a sexual relationship with a pupil and a proposed marriage. His assertion of coercion at trial was not raised in his witness statement, and the statement itself indicated he wrote it willingly. This breached the Code of Regulation for Teachers.
Lost income claim
Lost income to retirement age is not recoverable
The claimant sought Kshs 5,093,760/- being remuneration he would have earned to normal retirement age. Following the Supreme Court of Uganda in Bank of Uganda v Tinkamanyire, compensation for the remainder of the years to retirement is unattainable in law and such claims are speculative. The claim fails.
Legal principles established
#- Lost income for the unexpired period to retirement is not compensable; such claims are speculative
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the dismissal of the Claimant was fair
- 2.The Cause is dismissed with no order on costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (first-instance Cause)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Makutwa v Godrick & 2 others (Cause 158 of 2013) [2023] KEELRC 603 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 158 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/603/eng@2023-03-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.