Okoth v Meditest Diagnostic Services Limited (Cause E410 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3127 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer lost an unfair termination case because it had no hearing, no valid reason, and handed the employee her contract only on her last day.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Claimant's termination was for a fair reason and procedural hence unfair termination
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether termination was for a fair reason
No valid and fair reason was proved; the director who allegedly did not authorise the signing was not called to rebut the claimant's evidence
The respondent alleged the claimant signed board resolutions without authority. The claimant testified she signed on the director's instructions. The director never testified, leaving the claimant's evidence uncontroverted. The dismissal relied on a contract clause in a contract never issued to her. Substantive justification therefore failed.
Whether the termination procedure was fair
Procedure was unfair; no show cause letter, hearing, or opportunity to make representations was given
Under section 41 of the Employment Act the employee must be explained the reasons and heard. The respondent relied on a DCI statement and verbal warnings, but no disciplinary hearing or show cause letter existed, the DCI letter did not refer to the claimant, and no police officer was called. The legal burden under section 47(5) was not discharged.
Failure to issue a written contract
Issuing the contract on the date of termination was unfair labour practice and the claimant was not bound by its terms
The claimant was employed in August 2021 but only received a written, backdated contract on 21 March 2022 upon termination. The Employment Act obliges the employer to issue a contract within a reasonable time. The termination letter invoked clause 21.1.9 of that contract, which could not bind her.
Legal principles established
#- The employer bears the burden of proving valid and fair reasons for termination and procedural fairness, failing which termination is unfair
- An employee cannot be bound by the terms of an employment contract never issued to them
- Summary dismissal for gross misconduct still requires proof of reasons and a hearing
Court orders
#- 1.Three months' salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 405,361.50
- 2.Unpaid leave days of Kshs 72,000.00
- 3.One month's unpaid salary of Kshs 135,120.50
- 4.Six months' salary for unfair termination of Kshs 810,723.00
- 5.Awards subject to taxes and statutory deductions but to attract interest at court rates from date of judgment until payment in full
- 6.Respondent to pay costs of the suit
- 7.Respondent to issue the Claimant with a certificate of service
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act; Article 41, 47 of the Constitution referenced)
Relief refused
#12 months' compensation for unfair termination (full amount claimed)
Court awarded only six months' salary, considering that the respondent failed to prove fairness of the termination and that the claimant had worked for less than a year
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the claimant; awards (except costs) subject to taxes and statutory deductions, attracting interest at court rates from date of judgment until payment in full
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Court therefore finds and holds that the termination of the claimant's service was unfair in terms of reason and procedure followed
In conclusion the Court awards the claimant as follows: Kshs. i. Three month's salary in lieu of notice 405,361.50 ii. Unpaid leave days 72,000.00 iii. One month's unpaid salary 135,120.50 iv. Six month's salary for unfair termination 810,723.00 Total 1,423,203
The respondent shall further issue the claimant with a certificate of service
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical errors in judgment: duplicated text and garbled words
Internal date inconsistency regarding the board resolutions and the claimant's employment dates
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okoth v Meditest Diagnostic Services Limited (Cause E410 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3127 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3127/eng@2023-11-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.