Murimi v Institute of Human Resource Management (IHRM) (Cause 281 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 2729 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded an employee over Kshs.5.6 million because her employer fired her twice for the same offence without a fresh hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the second termination was for a valid reason following a fair procedure
The second termination was unlawful and unfair: no new Notice to Show Cause was issued after the Council revoked the first termination, and the claimant was given no hearing before the Ad hoc Committee conveyed its decision.
The Council, the respondent's supreme body, had revoked the first termination as null and void. The Ad hoc Committee then proceeded without issuing a new NTSC and without holding any hearing; the claimant was merely invited to a meeting where the decision to terminate was communicated to her. This violated Section 41 of the Employment Act, the rules of natural justice, and subjected her to double jeopardy. No valid reason for the second termination was demonstrated.
Whether the charge of unauthorized sale of the vehicle was valid
The sale was authorized by the Executive Director's memo notation 'proceed and close, approved', and the alleged failure to follow the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets procedure was a new accusation never raised in any Notice to Show Cause.
The memo of 5/11/2019 showed the Executive Director approved the sale at Kshs.400,000. The Procurement Act ground was introduced for the first time in the termination letter; R.W.1 admitted there was no reference to the Procurement Act in the NTSC and the respondent was not aware it followed the Act. The claimant, second-in-command, acted on delegated authority.
Entitlement to reliefs
The claimant was awarded 12 months' gross salary as compensation under Section 49, one month's notice pay, unpaid salary arrears and 59 leave days; aggravated and punitive damages and three months' notice pay were refused.
The Court took into account the claimant's 20 years of faithful service, her seniority, her advanced age and loss of 10 prospective years to retirement, and the aggravating double jeopardy. Notice pay was limited to one month for want of proof of a three-month contractual notice, and salary arrears and untaken leave were proved. The maximum statutory compensation was held adequate, so further damages were dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- Once the supreme organ of an employer (the Council) has reviewed and revoked a termination as null and void, the employee cannot be subjected to a further disciplinary process on the same facts without a new Notice to Show Cause and a fresh hearing.
- Termination without any hearing violates Section 41 of the Employment Act and the rules of natural justice, and subjecting an employee to a second disciplinary process on the same facts amounts to double jeopardy.
- Under Section 47(5) of the Employment Act, 2007, an employee who demonstrates that a termination was wrongful is entitled to compensation under Section 49(1)(c) and (4).
Court orders
#- 1.Kshs.4,614,216 in compensation (12 months' salary)
- 2.Kshs.384,518 in lieu of one month notice
- 3.Kshs.697,280 in lieu of 59 leave days
- 4.Interest at Court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 5.Costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment dispute (Employment Act, 2007; Article 41 of the Constitution, 2010 invoked)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murimi v Institute of Human Resource Management (IHRM) (Cause 281 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 2729 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 281 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2729/eng@2023-10-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.