Wambari v Nairobi Bottlers Limited (Cause E129 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 919 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court

8 April 2024

BMB. O. M. Manani

2,485 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that refusing to attend a work meeting convened by your manager is insubordination that can justify dismissal.

What this practically means

Executive summary

The Claimant, formerly employed by the Respondent as an Account Developer and later Key Accounts Executive, sued challenging the termination of her employment on 10th January 2022. She alleged that her line manager conducted a witch hunt against her from early 2021, issued unsubstantiated show cause letters, pre-determined her fate, denied her an opportunity to respond to accusations, and treated her discriminatorially (without particulars). She sought a declaration of unlawful termination and compensation. The Respondent maintained that the Claimant was terminated for insubordination after she willfully declined to attend a staff meeting convened by her line manager for 1st December 2021, and that she was accorded fair process including a show cause notice and a disciplinary hearing on 17th December 2021. The court framed two issues: whether the contract was unfairly terminated, and whether the parties were entitled to the reliefs sought. Applying sections 41, 43, 44, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act, the court held the line manager was entitled to require attendance at staff meetings; the Claimant's deliberate refusal, based on an unraised grievance, was insubordination amounting to gross misconduct under section 44, giving the Respondent a valid reason to terminate. On procedure, the show cause notice, the disciplinary hearing at which the Claimant was heard and effectively admitted snubbing the meeting, the neutral chairperson, and the unexercised right of appeal demonstrated fair process. The court dismissed the suit with costs to the Respondent and permitted the Respondent to process terminal dues subject to the conditions in the termination letter.

Key legal issues

Whether the Respondent had a valid reason to terminate the Claimant's employment

Holding

Yes. The Claimant's willful refusal to attend a staff meeting convened by her line manager was insubordination amounting to gross misconduct under section 44 of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

The line manager was entitled to require attendance at staff meetings as part of her supervisory control. The Claimant was notified of the meeting on 30th November 2021 and wrote back declining to attend, based on an unsubstantiated belief of a witch hunt that she had never raised with management. Her refusal was deliberate and defiant, constituting gross misconduct under section 44 of the Employment Act.

p. 4

Whether the termination followed fair procedure

Holding

Yes. The Claimant was issued a show cause notice, accorded a disciplinary hearing with the right to be accompanied and to be heard, and informed of a right of appeal.

Reasoning

The Claimant received a notice to show cause, was informed of her right to be accompanied by a co-worker and to avail material evidence, attended the disciplinary session of 17th December 2021 chaired by a neutral chairperson (Mr. Josphat Yegon), and conceded in the minutes that she snubbed the meeting. She did not raise bias at the hearing and did not exercise her right of appeal, so her due process complaints were afterthoughts.

p. 5

Legal principles established

An employee is obligated to attend staff meetings convened by a line manager unless the instructions are unlawful or in excess of the manager's mandate; willful refusal constitutes insubordination justifying termination.
Once an employee presents a prima facie case of unfair termination, the burden shifts to the employer to justify the termination.

Court orders

1.The suit is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
2.The Respondent is free to process the Claimant's terminal dues in accordance with the conditionalities set out in the letter of termination dated 10th January 2022.

Authorities

Legislation

Employment ActSection 41
Employment ActSection 43
Employment ActSection 44
Employment ActSection 45
Employment ActSection 47
Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) RulesRule 28(3)

Cases cited (2)

Palluci Home Depot (Pty) Ltd v Herskowitz & others
[2014] ZALAC 81
Christopher Komen Chebet v Brinks Security Services Limited
[2019] eKLR

Jurisdiction invoked: Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the Employment Act (ELRC Procedure Rules referenced for delivery of judgment)

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wambari v Nairobi Bottlers Limited (Cause E129 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 919 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No E129 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/919/eng@2024-04-08

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.