Maina v Honeycare Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E144 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 855 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed employers must give valid reasons and hold a fair hearing before firing, and cannot hide behind contracts or unsigned settlement agreements.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by finding that the Claimant’s dismissal was justified and lawful.
- 2.Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by holding that the Claimant was issued with a non-existent Settlement Agreement purportedly dated 31st March 2020, which the trial court erroneously held was voluntarily signed by the Claimant
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant's dismissal was justified and lawful
The trial magistrate erred; the termination was unlawful and unfair for want of substantive justification and procedural fairness.
The Appellant was confirmed as a permanent employee on 28.02.2020 and terminated on 31.03.2020 without any reason. Under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, the employer must prove valid reasons and follow fair procedure. The Respondent elected to rely on contractual terms and gave no reason and held no disciplinary hearing. Its failure to call viva voce evidence left pleadings as mere allegations. The termination was void of both substantive and procedural fairness.
Whether the trial court erred in upholding the Settlement Agreement/discharge voucher dated 31st March 2020
The trial court erred; the settlement agreement was not pleaded and its execution could not absolve the Respondent.
The Respondent did not plead the discharge voucher in its response, referring only to the termination letter, and gave no viva voce evidence. The document titled 'cheques payment voucher' merely recorded amounts paid, with no evidence the Claimant knew he was signing a discharge of liabilities. Coercion and absence of reasons for termination further undermined its validity.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination of employment to pass the fairness test, there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
- The Employment Act supersedes contractual terms that violate its provisions; an employer cannot rely on contractual termination rights to escape statutory requirements.
- Where a respondent does not plead a discharge voucher/settlement agreement or give viva voce evidence, the court cannot rely on it; pleadings not supporting it render the finding unsustainable.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant
- 2.Judgment delivered by Hon Lucy Njora on 22nd July 2022 and the decree thereof set aside
- 3.Memorandum of claim dated 28th July 2022 allowed
- 4.Relief awarded: 4 months' compensation for wrongful/unlawful termination at Kshs 60,000 x 4 = Kshs 240,000
- 5.Appellant to be issued with a certificate of service within 30 days
- 6.Each party to bear their own costs of the lower court proceedings
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrates Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Memorandum of Claim dated 28th July 2020 (per judgment, also referred to as 28th July 2022)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Chief Magistrate's Court employment claim (appeal against judgment and decree of 22nd July 2022); no specific provision cited
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In view of the foregoing, for termination of employment to pass the fairness test, there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
the law on termination of employment contracts has been clearly laid down under the Employment Act which supersedes terms of any contract that violates its provisions.
The judgment delivered by Hon Lucy Njora on 22nd July 2022 and decree thereof is to be set aside and memorandum of claim dated 28th July 2022 be allowed and the relief awarded is 4 months compensation for wrongful unlawful termination at kshs 60,000x4= 240,000 and also appellant to be issued with the certificate of service within 30 days.
The trial court did not seem to award costs and so each party to bear their costs of the lower court proceedings.
Issues in the judgment
#Date of the Memorandum of Claim given inconsistently as 28th July 2020 in the prayers and 28th July 2022 in the final orders
The Respondent is named nowhere in the judgment; parties are referred to only as Appellant and Respondent
Ground 2 of the appeal misquotes the trial magistrate's holding on whether the Respondent appeared, and the judgment does not resolve this discrepancy
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maina v Honeycare Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E144 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 855 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (Memorandum of Appeal dated 19th August 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/855/eng@2024-04-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.