Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMemorandum of claim dated 16th April, 2019 (filed 25th January, 2016)· [2023] KEELRC 3167 (KLR)

Wafula v Africa Blooms Limited (Cause 29 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 3167 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 November 2023
4,706 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled a farm worker's dismissal unfair because the employer held the disciplinary hearing before he could respond in writing, awarding him Kshs 264,467.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, formerly a fertigation supervisor (later Fertigation HOD) of the respondent, a commercial farming company, sued for a declaration that his termination was unfair and unlawful, notice pay, unpaid leave pay, twelve months' compensation for unfair termination, service/gratuity pay, costs and interests. He was dismissed on 4th March, 2019 over the loss of a generator pump under his jurisdiction, after a show-cause letter of 26th February, 2019. The respondent defended the dismissal as a fair summary dismissal for gross misconduct. The court framed three issues: fairness of the termination, entitlement to reliefs, and costs. On substance, the court found the respondent had genuine, sufficient and reasonable grounds under Section 44(4)(c) & (g) of the Employment Act to suspect the claimant had sold, stolen or negligently lost the pump. On procedure, however, the hearing was held the same day as the show-cause letter, before the claimant's written response was received, and the response was not mentioned in the termination letter - a violation of natural justice under Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act. The termination was declared unfair and unlawful for lack of procedural integrity. The court awarded notice pay at the actual gross salary of Kshs. 47,000/=, leave pay of Kshs. 76,467/= (burden shifting to the employer for unproduced records), and three months' compensation of Kshs. 141,000/= for contribution to dismissal - totalling Kshs. 264,467/=. Gratuity and service pay were denied as no contractual basis existed and NSSF/pension dues were remitted. A certificate of service was ordered within 30 days, with costs to the claimant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondent had a valid reason for terminating the claimant

Holding

The respondent had genuine, sufficient and reasonable grounds under Section 44(4)(c) & (g) of the Employment Act

Reasoning

The claimant admitted the generator-pump was missing, that he had no record of its removal for repair, and that he borrowed pumps from neighbouring farms without authority. His shifting explanations (sold as scrap, then taken for repairs) justified the respondent's suspicion of theft, sale or negligent loss. The court therefore did not fault the initiation of the disciplinary process.

p. 8
02

Whether the procedure adopted was fair

Holding

The procedure fell far short of natural justice under Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act

Reasoning

The show-cause letter did not inform the claimant of his right to call witnesses; a hearing was held on 26th February, 2019, the same day as the show-cause and before his written response of 1st March, 2019 was received; no minutes of an 'actual' disciplinary hearing were produced; and the termination letter did not mention his response, rendering it a formality.

p. 8
03

Entitlement to notice pay and the applicable salary

Holding

One month's notice pay awarded at the actual gross salary of Kshs. 47,000/=, not the pleaded Kshs. 37,000/=

Reasoning

The pay-slip for February, 2019 produced as an exhibit showed a gross salary of Kshs. 47,000/=. In the interest of the overriding duty to do justice, the court awarded the actual applicable gross salary, subject to statutory deductions.

p. 9
04

Entitlement to unpaid leave pay

Holding

Leave pay of Kshs. 76,467/= awarded because the respondent failed to produce leave records

Reasoning

Sections 10 and 74 of the Employment Act oblige the employer to keep employment records; failing to avail leave records, the respondent was condemned to pay the claimed leave compensation.

p. 9
05

Entitlement to compensation for unfair termination

Holding

Three months' gross salary (Kshs. 141,000/=) awarded under Section 49, not the maximum 12 months

Reasoning

Although termination was procedurally unfair, the claimant contributed to his dismissal through misconduct in removing the respondent's property without authority or documentation. Weighing the Section 49(4) factors, three months' gross salary was fair and reasonable.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must have a lawful reason for disciplinary process and adopt a fair, just and lawful procedure - substantive and procedural fairness are a twin-test
  • Once an employee raises an issue concerning a record the employer is legally obliged to keep, the burden of proof shifts to the employer
  • Gratuity is a voluntary payment or a contractual term and is not payable absent agreement or undertaking
  • Holding a disciplinary hearing before the employee's written response to a show-cause letter is considered violates procedural fairness

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration be and is hereby issued that the termination of the claimant was unfair and unlawful for lack of procedural integrity.
  2. 2.The claimant is awarded a sum of Kshs. 264,467/= (notice pay Kshs. 47,000.00; leave pay Kshs. 76,467.00; compensation Kshs. 141,000.00).
  3. 3.The respondent is ordered to issue and deliver to the claimant a certificate of service within 30 days of this judgment.
  4. 4.Costs of the cause to the claimant.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSections 10, 35, 36, 41, 43, 44(4)(c) & (g), 45, 46, 47(5), 48, 49(1)(c), 49(4), 51, 74
  • Evidence ActSection 107
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 47
  • Fair Administrative Action Actvarious provisions

Cases cited (12)

  • Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission
    (2013) eKLR
  • Mary Chemweno Kiptui v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited
    (2014) eKLR
  • Kenfreight (EA) Limited v Benson K. Nguti
    (2016) eKLR
  • Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited v Banking Insurance & Finance Workers Union
    (2017) eKLR
  • Judicial Service Commission v Gladys Boss Shollei & Another
    (2014) eKLR
  • British Leyland UK Limited v Swift
    (1981) 1 RLR 91
  • Lynus Kiplimo v Moi Teaching & Referral Hospital
    (2020) eKLR
  • Mary Chemweno v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited
    (2017) eKLR
  • Loice Otieno v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    (2013) eKLR
  • Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission
    (2012) eKLR
  • Monica Wanza Mbavu V Roofspec & Allied Works Co. Ltd
    (2021) eKLR
  • Bamburi Cement Limited V William Kilonzi
    (2016) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
First-instance employment claim under the Employment Act, Sections 35, 36, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wafula v Africa Blooms Limited (Cause 29 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 3167 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Memorandum of claim dated 16th April, 2019 (filed 25th January, 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3167/eng@2023-11-30

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