Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No E015 of 2023· [2024] KEELRC 1039 (KLR)

Njuguna v Embe Water and Sanitation Company Limited (Cause E015 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1039 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 April 2024
6,767 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~27 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled a water company unfairly fired its manager for lawful advice, awarding him over Kshs.1.68 million in damages and costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent as General Manager on a three-year contract from 20th April 2021 at a gross monthly pay of Kshs.116,730, was sent on 90-day compulsory leave on 14th December 2022, served with a show cause letter, and dismissed by a termination letter dated 12th April 2023 for gross misconduct. He sued, alleging unfair and unlawful termination, and sought a declaration, terminal dues, compensatory damages, interest and costs. The respondent admitted the employment relationship but justified the dismissal as summary dismissal for gross misconduct following a fair procedure. Four issues were agreed: validity of reasons, quorum of the Board, fairness of procedure, and reliefs. The court held that the reasons were invalid: the charges of insubordination, poor performance, misappropriation and irregular procurement were general, unsubstantiated, and concerned matters within the Board's own knowledge and budgetary role; the disciplinary process was found to be malicious retaliation for the claimant's lawful advice of 9th December 2022 against holding an extra special Board meeting without County Government approval, protected by Article 236 of the Constitution. The quorum challenge failed: even excluding the contested director Luceta Njeri Ngari, the Board had sufficient members under Article 65. On procedure, although the compulsory leave lacked justification and departed from the HR Manual, the claimant was heard in writing and orally, satisfying section 41 of the Employment Act. The termination was declared unlawful and unfair. The claimant was awarded three months' salary in lieu of notice (Kshs.350,190), six months' gross salary as compensation (Kshs.700,380), and gratuity for the two years served (Kshs.632,400), totaling Kshs.1,682,970, with costs and interest, subject to statutory deductions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination was grounded on valid reasons

Holding

The termination was not grounded on valid or justifiable reasons; the allegations were unsubstantiated and the disciplinary process was retaliatory.

Reasoning

The charges of insubordination, poor performance, misappropriation and unlawful procurement were general and unsupported: no performance evaluation was done, no staff complainants testified, no audit report or EACC/DCI complaint was produced, and the procurement and debts were matters known to and within the Board's own budgetary role. The dismissal followed the claimant's lawful advice against holding an extra special Board meeting without County Government approval, evidencing victimisation contrary to Article 236 of the Constitution.

p. 10
02

Whether the Board lacked quorum to dismiss the claimant

Holding

The Board had sufficient quorum notwithstanding the disputed status of Director Luceta Njeri Ngari.

Reasoning

Although the claimant argued that Luceta Njeri Ngari had resigned and her purported rescission was a nullity, the minutes showed six directors attended on 14th March 2023 and five on 5th April 2023. Even excluding her, at least four or five members remained, satisfying the quorum under Article 65 of the Articles of Association (one third of directors). The quorum challenge therefore failed.

p. 12
03

Whether the procedure followed was fair

Holding

Although the compulsory leave lacked justification and departed from the HR Manual, the claimant was accorded a fair hearing, so the procedure did not vitiate the decision - the failure was substantive.

Reasoning

Section 12.4.2 of the HR Manual prescribed show cause, interdiction or suspension, yet the respondent sent the claimant on compulsory leave with only 6 days to respond to the show cause letter instead of the 21 days provided, without justification. However, the claimant responded in writing and was heard orally by the Board and never protested, and the compulsory leave had no effect on the final decision. Under section 41 of the Employment Act the hearing requirement was met.

p. 12
04

What reliefs flow from the unfair termination

Holding

The claimant was entitled to a declaration, three months' salary in lieu of notice, six months' gross salary as compensation under section 49(1), and gratuity for the two years served.

Reasoning

Having found no valid reason, sections 43 and 45 entitled the claimant to a declaration. Under section 49(1) the court considered his two years of service, legitimate expectation of one further year, clean disciplinary record and lack of prior warnings, awarding six months' gross salary as compensation plus the conceded notice pay. Because the unlawful termination prevented completion of the contract, gratuity at 31% was awarded for the two years actually served.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer bears the burden of proving valid and fair reasons for termination; failing which the termination is unfair under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
  • A public officer may not be victimised or dismissed for performing lawful functions, including advising a Board against acting unlawfully.
  • Compulsory leave must not be used to defeat rights granted under an employer's HR Manual or the contract of employment.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the termination was unlawful.
  2. 2.Award of notice pay of Kshs.350,190.00 (three months' salary in lieu of notice).
  3. 3.Award of compensation for unfair termination of Kshs.700,380.00 (six months' gross salary).
  4. 4.Award of gratuity for the two years served of Kshs.632,400.00.
  5. 5.Total award of Kshs.1,682,970.00.
  6. 6.Costs of the suit to the claimant with interest at court rates from the date of judgment.
  7. 7.The award is subject to statutory deductions.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Section 41(1) and (2)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 43(1)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 45(2)(a) & (b)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 49(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 236
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Chapter Six
  • Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act2015 and Regulations of 2016 (referenced in termination letter)
  • Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) Best Practices GuidelinesSections 3.4.1, 3.5, 3.7.2 and 3.7.3, Section 4
  • State Corporations Act / Mwongozo Code and Government DirectivesLimits on Board meetings (as cited by claimant)
  • ELRC Procedure RulesRule 28(3)

Cases cited (7)

  • Katiba Institute & 3 others v Attorney General & 2 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission
    [2013] eKLR
  • Mary Chemweno Kiptui v Kenya Pipeline Co. Ltd
    [2014] eKLR
  • Emmanuel Mambo Oduory v One Acre Fund
    [2020] eKLR
  • Bernard Mwaura Mbuthia v Nyahururu Water & Sanitation Company Ltd & another
    (2019) eKLR
  • Thomson Karongo & 2 others v James Omariba Nyaoga & 3 others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Kenya Revenue Authority v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi & 2 others
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Employment Act, 2007; ELRC Procedure Rules)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njuguna v Embe Water and Sanitation Company Limited (Cause E015 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1039 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No E015 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1039/eng@2024-04-18

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