Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedAppeal from Mavoko CMEL No. 15 of 2018· [2023] KEELRC 2603 (KLR)

Rashid & 9 others v Endmor Steeel Millers Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E011 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 2603 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 October 2023
3,387 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a show cause letter is not a termination, but employees still won unpaid leave and service certificates.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret against the judgment of the Mavoko magistrates' court (Mavoko CMEL No. 15 of 2018) delivered on 29th October 2021, dismissing a claim by scrap chargers and loaders for terminal dues arising from alleged constructive and unfair termination by Endmor Steel Millers Ltd. The Appellants, issued show cause letters on 9th October 2018 over inefficiency and production delays and suspended for two weeks, contended they were denied access to the premises and thus unable to respond, amounting to constructive dismissal; they sought a declaration of unfair termination, notice pay, leave days, house allowance and 12 months' compensation. The Respondent maintained the Appellants ignored the show cause letters, deserted work after suspension, and were never terminated. Applying Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co and the contractual and reasonableness tests in Coca Cola v Lugaga, the court held that a show cause letter is not a termination letter and that constructive dismissal was not proved. The appeal succeeded only in respect of leave for 2018 (Kshs. 9,796, awarded by analogy with a co-worker paid leave) and certificates of service under section 51 of the Employment Act for those who worked more than four weeks. Notice pay, house allowance (included in daily wages per the Statutory Wages Order), the declaratory relief and 12 months' compensation were refused. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the appeal and in the lower court.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Appellants were constructively dismissed

Holding

The Appellants did not prove constructive dismissal; the show cause letters of 9th October 2018 were not terminations and the trial court was right to so hold.

Reasoning

Applying the contractual and reasonableness tests from Coca Cola v Lugaga, the court found the show cause letters invited a response within 48 hours and did not terminate employment. The trial court's finding was upheld.

p. 7
02

Whether the Appellants were entitled to terminal dues (notice, house allowance, 12 months' compensation)

Holding

These heads failed because they were premised on unfair termination which was not proved; house allowance was included in the daily wages per the Statutory Wages Order.

Reasoning

Since no unfair termination was established, notice pay and 12 months' compensation could not issue. Section 31(1) housing obligations were met because the gazetted wages order showed daily wages were inclusive of house allowance.

p. 7
03

Entitlement to leave days and certificate of service

Holding

Leave for 2018 at Kshs. 9,796 awarded by analogy with a co-worker who was paid leave; each Appellant who worked more than 4 weeks entitled to a certificate of service under section 51.

Reasoning

The record showed the Respondent paid leave to workers, including a payee who received the same show cause letter; equity required a similar award. Section 51 mandates a certificate of service for employees who worked more than 4 weeks.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • A show cause letter is not a termination letter
  • On a first appeal the court re-evaluates the evidence and draws its own conclusions, bearing in mind it did not hear the witnesses

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Award of leave for 2018 at Kshs. 9,796 to each Appellant
  2. 2.Each Appellant who worked for more than 4 weeks to be issued with a certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act
  3. 3.The rest of the Appeal is dismissed
  4. 4.Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal and in the lower court

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 45
  • Employment ActSection 28
  • Employment ActSections 36 and 49(1)(a)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 31(1)
  • Employment ActSection 51

Cases cited (3)

  • Selle & Another Vs Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd & Others
    [1968] EA 123
  • Walter Ogal Anuro vs Teachers Service Commission
    (2013) eKLR
  • Coca Cola East & Central Africa Limited vs Maria Kagai Lugaga
    [2015] eKLR
On appeal from
Magistrates' Court (Employment and Labour Relations), Mavoko
Mavoko CMEL No. 15 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's judgment in Mavoko CMEL No. 15 of 2018

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rashid & 9 others v Endmor Steeel Millers Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E011 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 2603 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Appeal from Mavoko CMEL No. 15 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2603/eng@2023-10-19

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