Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment excerpt· [2023] KEELRC 1409 (KLR)

Chepkorir v Secretary, Board of Amangment Nasokol Mixed Day and Boarding Primary School (Cause E004 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1409 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 June 2023
ANAbuodha J. N.
3,089 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court upheld a school's dismissal of its accounts clerk, finding valid reasons and a fair disciplinary process.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by Nasokol Primary and Boarding School as a receptionist from 1992 and elevated to accounts clerk in 1996, claimed that her services were wrongfully terminated. She pleaded that she was not paid salary from May to December 2020 (COVID-19 period), suffered a salary reduction from Kshs.20,140 to Kshs.14,000 between March 2021 and January 2022, was verbally ordered to hand over and go home in February 2022, and was dismissed for gross misconduct on 17th May 2022 after disciplinary proceedings. She sought a declaration that the termination was illegal and various monetary reliefs totalling approximately Kshs.1.5 million, including notice pay, unpaid salaries, arrears, leave allowance for 26 years and severance pay. The Respondent denied the claims, contending that the Claimant failed to remit NSSF deductions resulting in a Kshs.9,000 penalty, threatened to kill the Head Teacher, refused to produce her credentials, and was afforded a fair hearing before the Board of Management. The Claimant testified that remitting NSSF was the Principal's responsibility and that she shared the Head Teacher's photographs for prayer purposes only. The court held that sharing photographs with strangers without consent was misconduct regardless of motive, that failing to ensure statutory remittances causing the employer a penalty was negligence, and that valid reasons existed and a fair procedure was followed. The court declined to re-analyze the employer's decision, applying a reasonable-employer test. The claim was dismissed with costs to the Respondent. Judgment was delivered virtually at Nairobi on 9th June 2023 by Abuodha J. N.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the reasons for termination

Holding

Valid reasons existed: the Claimant was guilty of misconduct in sharing the Head Teacher's photographs with strangers without consent, and was negligent in failing to remit NSSF deductions causing the school to be penalised

Reasoning

The apology letter showed the Claimant admitted sharing the Head Teacher's photos, allegedly for prayer, which the court held was objectionable misconduct regardless of motive. The school was fined Kshs.9,000 for NSSF non-remittance, and the Claimant, as accountant, bore responsibility and never showed she raised the issue with management. Causing default on statutory deductions was held to be negligence.

p. 6
02

Fairness of the procedure followed

Holding

The termination followed a fair procedure; the Claimant was given opportunities to appear before the Board of Management

Reasoning

The Claimant appeared before the Board on 28th February 2022 regarding the threat issue (and was sent on leave for security reasons) and again on 13th April 2022 regarding the NSSF issue, at which the decision to terminate was made. The court found the process fair and declined to interfere with the employer's decision.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • The burden of proving unfair termination lies on the employee, while the burden of proving the reason for termination lies on the employer
  • The court does not re-analyze the employer's decision but asks whether a reasonable employer would have dismissed on similar circumstances
  • Reasons for termination must be facts that existed and which the employer genuinely believed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed
  2. 2.The Claimant shall pay the Respondent's costs
Jurisdiction invoked
First-instance employment and labour relations claim under the Employment Act (court's jurisdiction not expressly cited in the excerpt)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chepkorir v Secretary, Board of Amangment Nasokol Mixed Day and Boarding Primary School (Cause E004 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1409 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1409/eng@2023-06-09

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.