Ondieki v Vice Chancellor, Maasai Mara University & 2 others; Chairman Audit Committee Maasai Mara University (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 2234 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 254 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled Maasai Mara University unfairly dismissed its auditor after a two-year suspension, awarding him over Kshs 1.5 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the dismissal was substantively justified
The dismissal was not substantively justified; the Respondents produced no investigation report or verified reasons for termination
The Respondents laid allegations of misconduct but produced no report of investigation findings before the court. RW1 was unaware of the contents of the Claimant's responses to the notices to show cause. The Claimant's evidence that the VC orchestrated the dismissal after audit disputes over the Mara heist was consistent with RW1's testimony that the VC, not the DVC (A&F), authored the suspension and disciplinary correspondence contrary to the University's own HR Manual, and the Claimant was suspended for nearly two years without communication.
Whether the dismissal was procedurally fair
Although the hearing itself complied with section 41 of the Employment Act, the process was procedurally unfair because of the prolonged two-year suspension and disciplinary process beyond the 90-day period in the HR Manual and CBA
The court accepted that the hearing complied with section 41, but found that suspension from 23 February 2016 until termination on 16 April 2018 far exceeded the 90-day limits in the HR Procedure Manual and CBA, contrary to Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution. The explanation for the delay was 'hollow'; criminal and internal disciplinary processes run in parallel and the multi-agency investigation did not justify the delay. No investigation findings were tabled to show what decision the respondents reached.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
The Claimant was awarded compensation of five months' salary, one month in lieu of notice, 2017 leave pay, service pay subject to NSSF proof, withheld salary to be agreed, pension follow-up, costs, interest and a certificate of service; the imprest surcharge claim and a duplicative compensation prayer were declined
Having found the dismissal both substantively and procedurally unfair, the court rendered judgment for the Claimant with compensation of five months' salary, notice pay and leave pay. Service pay and withheld salary required further account by the parties, and the court declined the imprest surcharge claim as unproved. A duplicate compensation prayer was not granted as it was covered by the primary award.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination to pass the fairness test there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness
- Under sections 43 and 47(5) of the Employment Act, once an employee shows a prima facie unfair termination, the burden shifts to the employer to justify the grounds for termination
- Prolonged suspension and disciplinary process without good cause violates fair labour practices and fair administrative action and renders termination unfair
Court orders
#- 1.Award of 5 months' salary as compensation for wrongful termination (245,272 x 5 = Kshs 1,226,360)
- 2.One month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 245,272
- 3.Pension funds to be followed up with the pension fund with the respondent's co-operation and a report presented to court by 15/5/2024
- 4.Service pay for unpaid years granted unless there is proof of remittance to NSSF (parties to work it out and present to court on 14/3/2024)
- 5.Withheld salary from February 2016 to April 2018 - parties to agree on the same, the court not being privy to whether he was paid 50% or nothing during suspension
- 6.2017 leave pay of one month equivalent, Kshs 245,272
- 7.Parties to submit an accurate account on prayers E and F and present to court by 14/3/2024 to enable the court to issue a final award
- 8.Costs to the Claimant
- 9.Interest at court rates from date of judgment till full payment
- 10.Certificate of service within 30 days from date of judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment Act; Employment and Labour Relations Court Act) - no specific provision cited in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ondieki v Vice Chancellor, Maasai Mara University & 2 others; Chairman Audit Committee Maasai Mara University (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 2234 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 254 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/254/eng@2024-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.