Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMemorandum of Claim dated May 17, 2022· [2023] KEELRC 830 (KLR)

Kenya Tertiary & School Workers Union “KETASWU” v Board of Management, Kabarnet High School (Cause E018 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 830 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
13 April 2023
3,399 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

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

#
The claimant union sued on behalf of its member, Elijah Kibogong, a laboratory technician employed by the respondent school since 1995, who was suspended in November 2020 following an anonymous letter and the locking of the physics laboratory, and was thereafter retired early on January 18, 2022 on grounds of public interest. The union claimed the suspension and retirement were done without a hearing, contrary to sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, and sought declarations, damages of Kshs 4,354,891.75, a certificate of service, costs and interest. The respondent defended the retirement as a lawful, less-harsh alternative after insubordination, incitement and related misconduct, and denied the union's standing for lack of a recognition agreement. The court found that although the respondent alleged misconduct, the reasons for the early retirement were never tested because the grievant was never given a chance to be heard, rendering the termination unfair and unlawful under section 45(2) of the Employment Act. It also held that union membership is individual and not dependent on the employer's recognition of the union, per Article 41 of the Constitution. The court awarded 12 months' salary compensation (Kshs 284,952), unpaid half salary for the 14-month suspension (Kshs 166,222), one month's notice pay, one year's untaken leave pay and Kshs 500,000 in damages, totalling Kshs 998,666 less statutory deductions. The underpayment claim was refused for want of evidence. Costs and interest at court rates from the date of judgment were granted to the claimant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the grievant's suspension and early retirement on public interest without a hearing was unfair termination

Holding

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

Reasoning

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.

p. 7
02

Whether the grievant was a member of the claimant union despite the respondent having no recognition agreement with the union

Holding

Yes - union membership is individual and not dependent on recognition of the union by the employer, as guaranteed by Article 41 of the Constitution

Reasoning

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.

p. 6
03

Whether the claim for salary underpayment was proved

Holding

No - the underpayment claim was not proved or backed by evidence and was refused

Reasoning

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.

p. 7

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. 1.Award of maximum compensation of 12 months salary for unlawful early retirement/termination at Kshs 284,952
  2. 2.Award of unpaid salary while on suspension at Kshs 166,222 (half salary for 14 months)
  3. 3.Award of 1 month's salary in lieu of notice at Kshs 23,746
  4. 4.Award for untaken leave for 1 year at Kshs 23,746
  5. 5.Damages for unlawful early retirement equivalent to Kshs 500,000
  6. 6.Total award of Kshs 998,666 less statutory deductions
  7. 7.Costs and interest at court rates with effect from the date of judgment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Section 41(1) and (2)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 42(1)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 43
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 44(3) and (4)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 45(2) and (4)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 49(4)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 51
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41
  • Basic Education Regulations, 2015Regulation 18
  • Evidence ActSections 107-109
  • Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual for the Public Service
  • Ministry of Education Secondary School Accounting Policies

Cases cited (7)

  • Joseph Sitati Nato v Kenya Ports Authority
    [2010] eKLR
  • Kenya Revenue Authority v Menginya Salim Murgani
    [2010] eKLR
  • R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex-parte JONES
    [1988] 1 WLR 477, 481
  • BA Imonikhe v Unity Bank plc
    SC 68 of 2003
  • Walter Ogal Anuro v Teacher Service Commission
    [2013] eKLR
  • Gibson D Mwanjala v Kenya Revenue Authority
    [2015] eKLR
  • National Bank of Kenya v Pipeplastic Samsolit (K) Limited and another
    [2002] EA 503
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.