Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No 110 of 2017· [2023] KEELRC 3359 (KLR)

Karuga v Style Industries Ltd (Cause 110 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 3359 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
13 December 2023
DNDavid Nderitu
3,945 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nakuru court ruled a worker's dismissal unfair because one day's absence isn't desertion, awarding her maximum compensation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant sued her former employer seeking a declaration that her dismissal was wrongful, unfair and unlawful, together with terminal benefits of Kshs.308,893.55. She claimed she was verbally dismissed on 8th February 2016 on account of injuries sustained at work, without notice or hearing. The respondent alleged she absconded duty from 31st January 2016, was issued a show-cause letter, and was summarily dismissed, and that her dues were settled at Kshs.9,158. The court framed four issues: nature of employment, fairness of the dismissal, entitlement to reliefs, and costs. It found that despite periodic fixed-term contracts, the claimant worked continuously and was a month-to-month employee. On the dismissal, the court found the respondent's case riddled with inconsistencies: RW1 admitted the show-cause letter was never served, no phone contact existed for the claimant, the settlement certificate was unsigned and the cheque uncollected, and the warning letter bore contradictory dates. The court concluded the show-cause and dismissal letters were fabricated after a verbal dismissal, and that one day's absence could not amount to desertion under Section 44(2)(a) of the Employment Act. The dismissal was declared wrongful, unfair, and unlawful for want of substantive and procedural fairness. On reliefs, the claimant was awarded notice pay, leave pay (the burden shifting to the employer as custodian of records), and maximum compensation of twelve months' gross pay under Section 49(4), totalling Kshs.176,049.20. Claims for unpaid wages, underpayment, and housing allowance failed for want of evidence. Costs and interest were awarded to the claimant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Nature of the employment relationship

Holding

Despite periodic fixed-term contracts, the claimant was a month-to-month employee having worked continuously from about August 2013 to February 2016

Reasoning

Both contracts produced were short fixed-term contracts, yet pay-slips and evidence from both sides showed continuous monthly payment and uninterrupted service. The court held that by the parties' conduct the claimant remained employed on month-to-month terms after expiry of the last contract.

p. 5
02

Whether the summary dismissal was wrongful, unfair, and unlawful

Holding

The dismissal was wrongful, unfair, and unlawful for lack of both substantive and procedural fairness

Reasoning

The respondent alleged desertion but produced no attendance records, no evidence of service of the show-cause letter, and no proof of efforts to contact the claimant. RW1 admitted these gaps. The court found the show-cause and dismissal letters were fabricated after the verbal dismissal, and one day's absence could not constitute desertion under Section 44(2)(a).

p. 7
03

Entitlement to compensation under Section 49(4) of the Employment Act

Holding

Maximum compensation of 12 months' gross pay awarded

Reasoning

The court considered the Section 49(4) factors: no contribution by the claimant, over three years of service, willingness to continue working, no terminal benefits paid, and the respondent's whimsical, capricious conduct including attempts to generate evidence to cover the unlawful dismissal.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must have a lawful reason for termination and follow a fair procedure
  • The burden of proving that leave was taken or paid for shifts to the employer as custodian of employment records
  • Absence from duty for one day does not amount to absconding or desertion under Section 44(2)(a) of the Employment Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the dismissal of the claimant was wrongful, unfair, and unlawful
  2. 2.The claimant awarded Kshs.176,049.20 made up of notice pay Kshs.11,624.00, leave pay Kshs.24,937.20, and compensation Kshs.139,488.00
  3. 3.Costs of the cause to the claimant
  4. 4.The award subject to statutory deductions and attracting interest from the date of judgment till payment in full

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSections 10, 35, 36, 41, 43, 44, 44(2)(a), 44(4)(a), 45, 46, 47, 47(5), 48, 49(4), 74

Cases cited (6)

  • Mary Chemweno Kiptui v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited
    (2014) eKLR
  • George Onyango Akuti V G4S Security Services Kenya Ltd
    (2013) eKLR
  • Esha Chizi Lugogo V Pact Kenya
    (2013) eKLR
  • Daniel Mueke V Bhogals Auto World
    (2014) eKLR
  • Loice Otieno V Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    (2013) eKLR
  • Walter Ogal Anuro V Teachers Service Commission
    (2012) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction under the Employment Act (cause for unfair termination); matter part-heard before Mbaru J and continued by consent

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karuga v Style Industries Ltd (Cause 110 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 3359 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 110 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3359/eng@2023-12-13

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