Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No E003 of 2023· [2023] KEELRC 2834 (KLR)

Ruthuku v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E003 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2834 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 November 2023
3,173 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court upheld an employee's summary dismissal for skipping a disciplinary hearing, awarding only unpaid leave days because he lacked medical evidence and employer records favoured him.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, an ICT employee of the respondent since 2005 and stationed at KESRA Mombasa, was transferred in May 2019 to Nairobi pursuant to the respondent's staff rotation policy. He appealed on the basis of a respiratory condition requiring humid weather, without attaching medical reports. The respondent reviewed the appeal and re-posted him to Kajiado, but he declined to report and instead filed ELRC Cause No. 56 of 2019 seeking injunctive relief, which was declined in a ruling of 13 December 2019. Show-cause notices followed for insubordination, and he was invited to a disciplinary hearing on 9 January 2020. He emailed that morning seeking a reschedule on grounds of illness, without the sick sheet required by policy and with an erroneous date he never corrected. His employment was summarily dismissed on 9 January 2020 and his appeal was rejected. The court framed three issues: discrimination, unfair termination, and remedies. It held that the discrimination claim had no foundation because the claimant never availed medical records until after termination; that transfer is a management prerogative; and that failure to attend a lawful disciplinary invitation amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. The claim for unpaid salary for days out of station was rejected, and the claim for damages for premature termination also failed. The claim for 20 pending leave days succeeded because the employer, as custodian of records, failed to produce leave records under Sections 10(6) and (7) of the Employment Act. The court awarded Kshs. 104,667 for the leave days and 50% costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Discrimination on medical grounds

Holding

Not proved; the claimant never attached medical records to his transfer appeal and only availed a sick sheet after termination.

Reasoning

The claimant appealed the transfer citing a respiratory condition without any medical report. The respondent reviewed the appeal and moved him to Kajiado, which suited his condition. The only medical record was a sick sheet dated 8 January 2020 filed with the appeal on 6 February 2020, after dismissal. A prudent employee should have made his case with tangible records.

02

Unfair termination

Holding

Termination was lawful and procedural; the claimant frustrated his own employment by failing to attend the disciplinary hearing.

Reasoning

The claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing on 9 January 2020 and emailed on the morning seeking reschedule without attaching the required sick sheet, and citing an erroneous date he never corrected. Failure to attend upon lawful invitation is gross misconduct under Section 44(3) and (4) of the Employment Act and justifies summary dismissal.

p. 4
03

Claim for unpaid salary for days out of station

Holding

Rejected; the employer may deduct wages for days the employee was out of the allocated station.

Reasoning

After the court declined injunctive relief in ELRC Cause No. 56 of 2019 on 13 December 2019, the claimant was required to report to Kajiado but did not. Sections 17 and 19 of the Employment Act permit deductions of wages for days out of the work station.

p. 6
04

Claim for 20 pending leave days

Holding

Justified and awarded at Kshs. 104,667; the employer failed to produce work records.

Reasoning

Section 10(6) and (7) of the Employment Act require the employer to produce work records once a claim is filed. The respondent's response that strict proof was required did not discharge this duty, so the claim for 20 pending leave days succeeded.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee invited to a disciplinary hearing must attend or communicate inability; failure is gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal
  • An unwell employee must notify the employer, and a sick sheet is required under the employer's policy
  • Transfer of employees is a management prerogative to be interfered with only in rare and exceptional circumstances
  • The employer as custodian of records must produce leave records when a claim for pending leave days is filed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Award to the claimant of Kshs. 104,667 for 20 pending leave days
  2. 2.Dismissal of all other claims
  3. 3.Respondent awarded 50% costs, the claim having largely failed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Sections 30 and 34
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 44(3) and (4)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 44
  • Employment Act, 2007Sections 17 and 19
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 10(6) and (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Dorothy Njoki Ndung'u v Machakos University College & another
    [2017] eKLR
  • Paul Wanyagah v Market Development Trust t/a Kenya Markers Trust
    Civil Appeal No. 356 of 2017
  • Jennifer Osodo v Teachers Service Commission
    [2013] eKLR
  • Moses Kirui Toroitich v County Secretary, County Government of Baringo & 2 others
    [2021] eKLR
  • Henry Ochido v NGO Co-ordination Board
    [2015] eKLR
  • Engineer Francis N. Gachuri v Energy Regulatory Commission
    Cause No. 203 of 2011
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007)

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, "Ruthuku v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E003 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2834 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No E003 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2834/eng@2023-11-09

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