Mugallo v Crown Motors Group Limited (Cause 1147 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 2695 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employee's dismissal unfair because the employer could not prove its reason or follow proper disciplinary procedure.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent had a valid and fair reason for termination
The Respondent failed to prove the alleged submission of a tender for 61 units to the State Department of Agriculture; there was no valid and fair reason.
The employer alleged the Claimant submitted a tender for 61 units without approval, yet produced no documentation of the tender, its number or its submission. Section 43(2) requires a genuine belief, but the employer must also show reasonable and sufficient grounds for that belief. Who alleges must prove; the failure was fatal to the defence.
Whether the termination procedure complied with Section 41 of the Employment Act
Procedure was flawed; the Respondent did not demonstrate compliance with Section 41.
The invitation letter did not inform the Claimant of his right to be accompanied; there was no proof the charges were explained in a language he understood; no minutes, proceedings or committee recommendations were availed; and no attendance register was produced. RW2 confirmed there was no copy of the proceedings or minutes.
Entitlement to reliefs
Declaration, three months' notice pay and three months' compensation granted; leave, severance and commission claims dismissed for want of proof.
Clause 20 of the Letter of Appointment provided 90 days' notice, so three months' salary in lieu was due. Section 49(1)(c) compensation was assessed at three months considering length of service of about 3 years 7 months, clean disciplinary record, no wish to remain and the Claimant's contributory conduct.
Legal principles established
#- A valid termination requires both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
- The employer bears the burden of proving a valid and fair reason on a balance of probabilities under Section 45(2) of the Employment Act.
- The procedural elements prescribed by Section 41 of the Employment Act are mandatory.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that termination of the Claimant's employment by the Respondent was unfair.
- 2.Three months salary in lieu of notice Kshs.975,000/=.
- 3.Equivalent of 3 months salary Kshs.975,000/= compensation, total award Kshs.1,950,000.00.
- 4.Costs of this suit to the Claimant.
- 5.Interest at court rates from date of judgment till payment in full.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 over a claim of unfair termination of employment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mugallo v Crown Motors Group Limited (Cause 1147 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 2695 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 1147 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2695/eng@2023-10-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.