Njuguna v Embe Water and Sanitation Company Limited (Cause E015 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1039 (KLR)
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
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was grounded on valid reasons
The termination was not grounded on valid or justifiable reasons; the allegations were unsubstantiated and the disciplinary process was retaliatory.
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.
Whether the Board lacked quorum to dismiss the claimant
The Board had sufficient quorum notwithstanding the disputed status of Director Luceta Njeri Ngari.
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.
Whether the procedure followed was fair
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.
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.
What reliefs flow from the unfair termination
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.
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.
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.Declaration that the termination was unlawful.
- 2.Award of notice pay of Kshs.350,190.00 (three months' salary in lieu of notice).
- 3.Award of compensation for unfair termination of Kshs.700,380.00 (six months' gross salary).
- 4.Award of gratuity for the two years served of Kshs.632,400.00.
- 5.Total award of Kshs.1,682,970.00.
- 6.Costs of the suit to the claimant with interest at court rates from the date of judgment.
- 7.The award is subject to statutory deductions.
- 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.