Hobaya v Roy Hauliers Limited (Cause E554 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 449 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a branch manager's dismissal and ordered him to pay his former employer Kshs.18 million after he failed to prove he was unfairly terminated.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was wrongful, unfair and unlawful
The court found a lawful termination; the claimant failed to discharge his burden under Section 47(5) of the Employment Act to prove unfair termination, and the respondent's evidence of misconduct and unaccountability prevailed.
The claimant alleged no hearing contrary to Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act and natural justice, but the respondent demonstrated the claimant was called to a meeting, could not account for funds, and later appealed to a personnel committee which heard him with a representative of his choice and upheld the dismissal. The court held the claimant failed to substantiate a case of unlawful termination to contradict the respondent's evidence of lawful dismissal for continued misconduct.
Whether the respondent is entitled to the counterclaim of Kshs.18 million
The counterclaim was allowed; the court found the respondent supported it with documents and testimony and that the claimant's denials were baseless.
The respondent demonstrated through debit notes, invoices and witness testimony that the claimant misappropriated funds and occasioned transit losses through failure to conduct test load reports. The deductions made from the claimant's salary were treated as partial recovery. On a preponderance of evidence, the court found a supported case for the counterclaim.
Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought
The claimant was not entitled to any of the relief sought, having failed to prove unlawful termination.
All heads of relief (reinstatement, salary deductions, severance pay, days worked, accrued leave pay, pay in lieu of notice and 12 months' compensation) were premised on unlawful termination, which the court found unproved. The claim was therefore dismissed, though without an order for costs against the claimant.
Legal principles established
#- For a complaint of unfair termination, the employee bears the burden of proving that unfair termination occurred, while the employer bears the burden of justifying the grounds for termination
- He who alleges must prove
- Parties are bound by their pleadings and evidence at variance with the pleadings goes to no issue
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant be is hereby ordered to meet the Counter Claim for Kshs.18,000,000.00 as awarded by this court.
- 2.Each party shall bear their costs of the claim and Counter Claim.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment Act, Cap 226); no specific constitutional provision invoked
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hobaya v Roy Hauliers Limited (Cause E554 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 449 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/449/eng@2024-02-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.