Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedFormerly Bungoma ELRC Cause E030 of 2022, transferred to Kakamega· [2023] KEELRC 2519 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Domestic Workers, Hotels, Educational Institutions And Hospital Workers Union(KUDHEIHA) v BOM Lirhanda Girls High School (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 16 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2519 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 October 2023
5,994 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~24 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a union claim for two school workers, holding both dismissals were fair and no compensation, gratuity or notice pay was owed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant union sued on behalf of two of its members, Miriam Magozi (a copy typist) and Henry Shilovele (a driver), whose employment with the Respondent school was terminated. Miriam was suspended in June 2021 over allegations of inciting students to strike and parents against management, and was dismissed on 27th July 2022 after disciplinary proceedings. Henry was reassigned as gardener/cleaner, later claimed medical grounds for retirement, failed to report to duty and was dismissed on 27th July 2022 for absconding. The court framed two issues: whether the terminations were lawful and fair, and whether the grievants were entitled to the reliefs sought. The court held that Miriam's dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair: six witnesses before the disciplinary committee confirmed the incitement allegations, which she did not refute, and a reasonable employer would have dismissed her. Henry's dismissal was justified under section 44(4)(a)(b) and (e) of the Employment Act: his absence without leave amounted to gross misconduct, the medical recommendation did not bind the employer, and the onus of proving his medical condition lay on him. Both grievants were afforded section 41 procedural fairness. On reliefs, the court found no CBA existed or was produced; the Kudheiha/Ministry of Education CBA had long expired, and since both were on NSSF, gratuity claims failed. Unpaid salary claims were declined as sub judice in Kakamega ELRC No. 35 of 2023 and for lack of pleading basis. Compensation, suspension-period pay and notice pay were all refused. The entire claim was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether Miriam Magozi's dismissal was substantively fair

Holding

The dismissal was substantively fair and valid; witnesses before the disciplinary committee confirmed incitement and a reasonable employer would have dismissed her.

Reasoning

Minutes of the disciplinary committee of 22nd July 2022 recorded six witnesses who confirmed Miriam incited students and parents to strike; she cross-examined the witnesses and did not refute the allegations at trial. Applying the reasonable employer test from British Leyland v Swift, the court held the reasons for dismissal were valid and lawful.

p. 7
02

Whether Henry Shilovele's dismissal was substantively fair

Holding

The dismissal was substantively fair; his absence from work without permission amounted to gross misconduct under section 44(4)(a),(b) and (e).

Reasoning

Henry absented himself from the work station from 2nd March 2021 without authority. The medical letter recommending retirement on medical grounds was not conclusive, as the decision to retire was the employer's, not his. He failed to respond to the show cause letter and failed to produce medical notes; the onus of proving his medical condition was on him.

p. 8
03

Whether the dismissals were procedurally fair

Holding

Both grievants were accorded procedural fairness under section 41 of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

Both grievants were notified, invited to disciplinary hearings, attended them, were accompanied by union representatives, and were given the opportunity to question witnesses. The delay in proceedings was explained by court orders and DCI/ODPP escalation, and the PSC policy requirement of finalising disciplinary cases within six months was considered.

p. 9
04

Entitlement to gratuity and notice pay

Holding

Neither grievant was entitled to gratuity or notice pay; no CBA existed or was produced and the Kudheiha/Ministry of Education CBA had expired.

Reasoning

Both grievants admitted NSSF deductions were made. The appointment letters made no provision for gratuity and did not refer to any CBA. The court took judicial notice that the Kudheiha/Ministry of Education CBA existed but had since expired, relying on Court of Appeal and Industrial Court authority, so rights were governed by the employment contracts and the Employment Act.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must prove the reason or reasons for termination; failure to do so renders the termination unfair under section 45 of the Employment Act.
  • The reasonableness test: if a reasonable employer might reasonably have dismissed the employee, the dismissal is fair.
  • Service pay/gratuity is not payable over and above NSSF contributions absent a CBA or contractual entitlement.
  • An employee absenting himself from work without leave or lawful cause amounts to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal under section 44(4) of the Employment Act.
  • Submissions are not pleadings and parties are bound by their pleadings.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The entire claim fails and is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Domestic Workers, Hotels, Educational Institutions And Hospital Workers Union(KUDHEIHA) v BOM Lirhanda Girls High School (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 16 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2519 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Formerly Bungoma ELRC Cause E030 of 2022, transferred to Kakamega. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2519/eng@2023-10-18

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