Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in judgment (Memorandum of Appeal dated 19th August 2022)· [2024] KEELRC 855 (KLR)

Maina v Honeycare Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E144 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 855 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
12 April 2024
AMANNA NGIBUINI MWAURE
2,803 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

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

#
This is a first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi (Anna Ngibuini Mwaure, J) against the judgment of Hon. Lucy Njora, SPM, delivered on 22nd July 2022, which had found that the Appellant's dismissal from employment was justified. The Appellant, employed as a Financial Controller in August 2019, varied to Credit Controller in January 2020 and confirmed permanent on 28th February 2020, was served with a termination letter dated 31st March 2020 which he said he was coerced to sign without reasons. The appeal was undefended. The court framed two issues: whether the trial magistrate erred in finding the dismissal justified, and whether she erred in upholding a purported settlement agreement of 31st March 2020. Applying sections 41, 43, 45 and 47(5) of the Employment Act, and the authorities of Galgalo Jarso Jillo v Agricultural Finance Corporation, Kenfreight E.A Limited v Benson Nguti and Walter Anuro v Teachers Service Commission, the court held that termination requires both substantive justification and procedural fairness, and that the Employment Act supersedes contractual terms violating its provisions. The Respondent proved no valid reason and held no disciplinary hearing. The settlement agreement was not pleaded and the Respondent gave no viva voce evidence; the discharge voucher could have been a mere acknowledgment of payment. The appeal was allowed with costs: the trial judgment and decree were set aside, the memorandum of claim allowed, the Appellant awarded four months' compensation (Kshs 240,000) and a certificate of service within 30 days, with each party bearing their own costs of the lower court proceedings.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant's dismissal was justified and lawful

Holding

The trial magistrate erred; the termination was unlawful and unfair for want of substantive justification and procedural fairness.

Reasoning

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.

p. 5
02

Whether the trial court erred in upholding the Settlement Agreement/discharge voucher dated 31st March 2020

Holding

The trial court erred; the settlement agreement was not pleaded and its execution could not absolve the Respondent.

Reasoning

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.

p. 6

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. 1.Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant
  2. 2.Judgment delivered by Hon Lucy Njora on 22nd July 2022 and the decree thereof set aside
  3. 3.Memorandum of claim dated 28th July 2022 allowed
  4. 4.Relief awarded: 4 months' compensation for wrongful/unlawful termination at Kshs 60,000 x 4 = Kshs 240,000
  5. 5.Appellant to be issued with a certificate of service within 30 days
  6. 6.Each party to bear their own costs of the lower court proceedings
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

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.