Mutua v St. Mary’s Mission Hospital (Cause E340 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3089 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court found a hospital unfairly sacked its quality assurance manager after a two-day disciplinary process, awarding her six months' salary plus costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was for valid and fair reasons under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
The termination was not for valid reasons; the Claimant was blamed for the Respondent's own failure to maintain theatre equipment and no record of the offending presentation existed
The court noted the Respondent produced no record of the presentation alleged to have embarrassed the hospital, and that responsibility for rusted instruments lay with procurement and user departments, not the quality assurance manager alone. The attribution of departmental-wide duties to the Claimant was implausible. The court concluded she was punished for unlawful reasons and entitled to remedies for unfair dismissal.
Whether the Claimant was accorded a fair hearing under section 41 of the Employment Act
The hearing was not fair; the speed of the process (show cause 11th June, hearing 12th June, dismissal 13th June) showed a predetermined outcome
The court reasoned that a genuine hearing requires the employer to consider the employee's representations before deciding. Dismissing the employee one day after the hearing, without any record of the impugned presentation being produced, demonstrated that the decision was preordained and did not meet the procedural fairness standard in Anthony Mkala Chitavi.
The appropriate remedy for the unfair termination
Termination reduced from summary dismissal to normal termination with notice; one month's salary in lieu of notice and five months' salary as compensation awarded
Although the Claimant sought twelve months' salary, the court considered her short service of slightly over one year and exercised discretion under section 49 to award five months' compensation, plus notice pay, certificate of service, costs and interest.
Legal principles established
#- A hearing conducted so hastily that dismissal follows the very next day, without the employer even having a record of the impugned conduct, is not a fair hearing under section 41 of the Employment Act
- An employer who fails to prove the reason for termination must compensate the employee, but compensation under section 49 should be proportionate to length of service
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant against the Respondent for one month's salary in lieu of notice - Kshs. 120,000/-
- 2.5 month's salary as compensation - Kshs. 600,000/-
- 3.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
- 4.Certificate of service in terms of section 51 of the Employment Act
- 5.Interest on the sums in (a) and (b) at court rates from date of judgment till payment in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (unfair termination claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutua v St. Mary’s Mission Hospital (Cause E340 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3089 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No E340 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3089/eng@2023-11-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.