Apondi v Maadili Schools (Appeal E042 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 16 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court doubled an unfairly dismissed employee's award to Kshs 300,000 after the magistrate failed to explain why she refused compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the trial magistrate's discretion in declining compensation for unfair termination was exercised judiciously
The discretion was exercised injudiciously because the magistrate gave no indication of which section 49(4) factors she considered, warranting appellate intervention.
Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act permits compensation of up to 12 months' gross wages for unfair termination, guided by the section 49(4) factors including the employee's wishes, contribution to termination, length of service, reasonable expectations and availability of alternative employment. The magistrate made an unexplained award of only pay in lieu of notice despite finding the termination unfair. Absent any indication of the factors considered, the discretion was exercised on no discernible principles, justifying intervention per Butt v Khan.
The appropriate quantum of compensation on re-evaluation
Six months' gross salary (Kshs 300,000/-) was appropriate compensation given about 8 years of service, the award of only pay in lieu of notice, and the breakdown of a marital relationship between the Appellant and a director of the Respondent.
Re-evaluating the record, the Court weighed the Appellant's roughly 8 years of service against the sole award of pay in lieu of notice. It also noted the personal dimension: the Appellant and a director of the Respondent were in a marital relationship that had broken down. Balancing these section 49(4) factors, the Court considered six months' gross salary, calculated on the Kshs 50,000/- gross salary at separation, an appropriate award.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court proceeds by way of re-hearing, re-appraising the evidence and drawing its own inferences of fact to arrive at independent conclusions.
- The judicial discretion to award or not award compensation for unfair termination must not be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or whimsically, and an appellate court may intervene where it is exercised injudiciously or on wrong principles.
- A magistrate who declines compensation after finding unfair termination must indicate which of the section 49(4) factors were considered; failure to do so renders the exercise of discretion injudicious.
Court orders
#- 1.The order of the Principal Magistrate declining to award compensation is set aside and vacated
- 2.Compensation of Kshs 300,000/- (equivalent of 6 months' gross salary at Kshs 50,000/-) awarded to the Appellant
- 3.The Appellant to have costs of the Appeal
- On appeal from
- Subordinate Court (Principal Magistrate)
- not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from the subordinate court in an employment dispute; appeal under the Employment Act, 2007 framework (Section 49(1)(c) and 49(4))
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Apondi v Maadili Schools (Appeal E042 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 16 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Memorandum of Appeal filed 1 August 2023 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/16/eng@2024-01-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.