Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2023] KEELRC 3178 (KLR)

Kenya Chemical Workers Union v Vee Plastics Limited (Cause E813 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3178 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
5 December 2023
1,570 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer who fired a machine operator by verbal order, with no hearing or warning, was ordered to pay over Kshs 321,000 for unfair termination.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a labour organisation acting on behalf of grievant Jonathan Mwema Kalima, sued the Respondent Company for unfair termination. The grievant, employed from 20th September 2012, was on 1st August 2020 verbally ordered by Director Mr. Ashok Shah to leave the premises after the machine he operated broke down, and was told to pay Kshs 60,000/= for a new motor or cease working. No notice, warning, show-cause letter or disciplinary process preceded the dismissal. After failed attempts at resolution and conciliation before the Ministry of Labour, at which the Respondent refused to attend, the claim proceeded undefended despite service, by way of written submissions. The court found the dismissal neither substantively justified nor procedurally fair, contrary to sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. It allowed one month's notice pay (Kshs 19,838/=), July 2020 salary (Kshs 19,838/=), three years' unpaid annual leave (Kshs 48,831/=), service pay for three years (Kshs 34,445/=) and compensation of 10 months' salary (Kshs 198,380/=), totalling Kshs 321,222/=. The grievant was also awarded a certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act, and the Claimant was granted costs. Judgment was delivered virtually at Nairobi on 5th December 2023 by Abuodha Nelson Jorum, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Substantive and procedural fairness of the termination

Holding

The dismissal was unfair both substantively and procedurally as no valid and fair reason was established and no notice, warning, show-cause or hearing was given

Reasoning

The court found that the Director verbally ordered the grievant out of the premises after a machine breakdown, blamed him for the burnt motor, demanded he pay Kshs 60,000/= for a replacement and, on his explanation that the motor was old and had burnt before, dismissed him without listening. No notice, warning or reasons for termination were given, and no disciplinary process was initiated, contrary to sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.

p. 3
02

Remedies for unfair termination

Holding

Notice pay, salary for July 2020, unpaid annual leave for three years, service pay for three years, certificate of service and compensation of 10 months' salary were awarded

Reasoning

Because the termination was substantially unjustified and procedurally flawed, notice pay was allowed. Uncontested heads (July 2020 salary, three years' unpaid leave, service pay) were allowed as unrebutted. Compensation was fixed at 10 months' salary considering eight years of service and the Respondent's refusal to attend conciliation or court proceedings.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Termination of employment without notice, warning or reasons, and without affording the employee a hearing, is neither substantively nor procedurally justified under the Employment Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration implicit in the finding that the dismissal of the grievant's employment was not substantially justified
  2. 2.One month notice pay of Kshs 19,838/=
  3. 3.July 2020 salary of Kshs 19,838/=
  4. 4.3 years annual leave pay of Kshs 48,831/=
  5. 5.Service pay for three years of Kshs 34,445/=
  6. 6.10 months' compensation for unfair and unlawful termination of Kshs 198,380/=
  7. 7.Total award of Kshs 321,222/=
  8. 8.Certificate of service to the grievant under section 51 of the Employment Act
  9. 9.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
Jurisdiction invoked
First-instance jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Labour Institutions Act over the unfair termination dispute reported to the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Labour

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Chemical Workers Union v Vee Plastics Limited (Cause E813 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3178 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3178/eng@2023-12-05

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