Nthusi v Adex Plastics Limited (Cause E029 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 1644 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court upheld a worker's dismissal because his employer proved a valid reason and followed a fair disciplinary process after prior warnings.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was for a valid reason
Yes - the claimant, while serving a 3rd and final warning, disobeyed lawful instructions and was validly terminated after a disciplinary hearing.
The claimant had absented himself repeatedly and received warning letters. While serving a 3rd and final warning he disobeyed lawful instructions on June 25, 2020. He was given a notice to show cause, responded, and attended a disciplinary hearing. The court found the employer proved a valid reason under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act and that the claimant had adequate opportunity to reform.
Whether a fair procedure was followed
Yes - the claimant was issued a notice to show cause, responded to it, and attended a disciplinary hearing.
The evidence showed the claimant was summoned to a disciplinary committee and given an opportunity to explain himself. Even after an earlier hearing he received a warning rather than dismissal. The court was satisfied the procedure was fair, defeating the claim of violation of Article 41(1) rights.
Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
No - the claim had no merit and was dismissed.
Having found both valid reason and fair procedure, the court held the claim lacked merit. It relied on Kenya Revenue Authority v Menginya Salim Murgani and M'Bita Ntiro v Mbae Mwirichia & another in reaching this conclusion, dismissing the suit but apportioning no costs against the claimant on equitable grounds.
Legal principles established
#- An employer who proves a valid reason for termination under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act and follows a fair procedure after prior warnings is not liable for unfair termination.
Court orders
#- 1.The suit has no merit and is dismissed.
- 2.Each party to meet their costs of the suit taking into consideration principles of equity and that the claimant had served the respondent for a period of four (4) years.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Article 41(1) and Employment Act, 2007 invoked)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nthusi v Adex Plastics Limited (Cause E029 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 1644 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No E029 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1644/eng@2023-06-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.