Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment text supplied· [2023] KEELRC 3220 (KLR)

Mugane v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E449 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 3220 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
7 December 2023
2,002 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court upheld a dismissal for absenteeism because the employee had admitted being absent in writing, even though he missed the disciplinary hearing by accident.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent from September 2018 under successive fixed-term contracts, was terminated by letter dated 06.03.2020 for absenteeism without permission or lawful cause for 17 days and for failing to attend a disciplinary hearing held on 29.01.2020. He sued for a declaration that the termination was unfair, 12 months' compensation, one month's pay in lieu of notice, service pay totalling Kshs 1,215,000, interest, constitutional damages under Articles 41 and 47, a certificate of service and costs. The respondent maintained that the dismissal was for a genuine reason amounting to statutory gross misconduct under section 44(4)(a) of the Employment Act, that the claimant was invited to the disciplinary hearing, and that it acted leniently by paying notice instead of summarily dismissing him. The court found the parties were in a contract of service terminated for absenteeism. Although the claimant was not aware of the disciplinary hearing because the invitation was sent to a wrong phone number, he had admitted in his response to the show-cause letter that he was absent without formal leave, and admitted further absence in cross-examination. The court held the reason for termination was substantially genuine under section 43 and fair procedure under section 45 was followed, so the termination was not unfair. All monetary and constitutional remedies collapsed. The court ordered the respondent to issue a certificate of service under section 51 within 30 days and ordered each party to bear its own costs. The suit was accordingly dismissed in substance.

Key legal issues

#
01

Existence of a contract of service

Holding

The parties were in a contract of service.

Reasoning

The court found no dispute between the parties on the existence of the employment relationship; both proceeded on the basis that the claimant was employed by the respondent under successive fixed-term contracts from September 2018 until termination in March 2020.

p. 4
02

Termination and its reason

Holding

The contract was terminated by letter dated 06.03.2020 for absenteeism without permission for 17 days and failure to attend the disciplinary hearing on 29.01.2020.

Reasoning

The termination letter cited absence without permission or lawful cause for the days in the show cause letter and breach of section 44(4)(a) of the Employment Act and clause 6.1.1 of the respondent's code of conduct.

p. 4
03

Whether the termination was unfair (substantive and procedural fairness)

Holding

The termination was not unfair; the reason was substantially genuine and fair procedure was followed.

Reasoning

The claimant admitted in his memo of 21.11.2019 that he had been absent without formal leave, and in cross-examination admitted absence on 17.09.2019 with no sick leave chit. Although the claimant was not aware of the disciplinary hearing (the invitation went to a wrong phone number), his admission in the show-cause response established the misconduct, satisfying sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.

p. 4
04

Remedies

Holding

Only the certificate of service was awarded; monetary remedies collapsed with the dismissal of the unfair termination claim.

Reasoning

Section 51 of the Employment Act entitles an employee to a certificate of service regardless of the outcome of the unfair termination claim. As the claim failed, compensation, notice pay and service pay were not available.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An admission in a response to a show cause notice that the employee was absent without permission establishes a valid reason for termination even if the employee did not attend the disciplinary hearing.
  • An employee is entitled to a certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act notwithstanding that the claim for unfair termination fails.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claimant to deliver the certificate of service in 30 days from the date of judgment
  2. 2.Each party to bear own costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution pleaded by the claimant)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mugane v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E449 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 3220 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment text supplied. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3220/eng@2023-12-07

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