Kenya Tertiary & School Workers Union “KETASWU” v Board of Management, Kabarnet High School (Cause E018 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 830 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a school worker nearly Kshs 1 million because his employer retired him early without ever giving him a hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the grievant's suspension and early retirement on public interest without a hearing was unfair termination
Yes - the grievant was never given a chance to be heard, so the reasons for early retirement were never tested; he was unfairly and unlawfully terminated under section 45(2) of the Employment Act
The court found that although the respondent alleged insubordination and incitement, those reasons were never tested because the grievant was never given an opportunity to be heard. Section 41 of the Employment Act mandates notification and hearing before termination on grounds of misconduct, including explanation of reasons and entitlement to representation. Failing proof of valid reason, fair reason and fair procedure under section 45(2), the termination was unfair and unlawful, entitling the grievant to remedies.
Whether the grievant was a member of the claimant union despite the respondent having no recognition agreement with the union
Yes - union membership is individual and not dependent on recognition of the union by the employer, as guaranteed by Article 41 of the Constitution
The respondent contended the grievant was not a union member and had no recognition agreement with the claimant union. The court held that membership is individual and does not depend on recognition, grounding this in Article 41 of the Constitution which guarantees every worker the right to form, join or participate in the activities of a trade union. CW2 substantiated membership, and the respondent did not object to the union's standing during conciliation.
Whether the claim for salary underpayment was proved
No - the underpayment claim was not proved or backed by evidence and was refused
The respondent argued that particulars of the underpayment claim were never shown, and that the claimant ought to have given evidence under this head in accordance with sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act. The court accepted that the underpayment claim was not substantiated by evidence and excluded it from the remedies awarded, awarding only the heads it found proved.
Legal principles established
#- No termination of employment on grounds of misconduct can be effected without a fair hearing process under section 41 of the Employment Act
- Union membership is individual and does not depend on the employer recognising the union
- A termination is unfair where the employer fails to prove a valid and fair reason and a fair procedure under section 45(2) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Award of maximum compensation of 12 months salary for unlawful early retirement/termination at Kshs 284,952
- 2.Award of unpaid salary while on suspension at Kshs 166,222 (half salary for 14 months)
- 3.Award of 1 month's salary in lieu of notice at Kshs 23,746
- 4.Award for untaken leave for 1 year at Kshs 23,746
- 5.Damages for unlawful early retirement equivalent to Kshs 500,000
- 6.Total award of Kshs 998,666 less statutory deductions
- 7.Costs and interest at court rates with effect from the date of judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment and labour relations claim arising from a trade dispute reported to the Ministry of Labour and conciliated under the Labour Relations Act; reliefs founded on sections 41, 43, 45, 49 and 51 of the Employment Act, 2007 and Article 41 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Tertiary & School Workers Union “KETASWU” v Board of Management, Kabarnet High School (Cause E018 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 830 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Memorandum of Claim dated May 17, 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/830/eng@2023-04-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.