Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedELRC Appeal No. E107 of 2021· [2024] KEELRC 1259 (KLR)

Securitas Kenya Limited v Nyakundi (Appeal E107 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 1259 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 May 2024
AJAbuodha Nelson Jorum
1,398 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer that can't prove valid reasons and fair process for dismissal loses, and courts won't automatically award the maximum 12 months' compensation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court from the judgment of Honourable D.O Mbeja, Principal Magistrate, delivered in Nairobi on 27th August 2021 in an unfair termination claim. The appellant employer raised seven grounds of appeal, contending principally that the respondent was not terminated but absconded after a seven-day suspension, that the claim was settled at the Labour Office with terminal dues of Kshs.8,833/55 agreed, and that the trial magistrate applied too high a standard of proof. The appellant sought that the appeal be allowed, the trial judgment set aside and the respondent's claim dismissed with costs. The court applied the Selle vs Associated Motor Boat Company Limited principles requiring it to re-evaluate the evidence. It found the appellant failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating valid reasons for termination and a fair process: no minutes of the disciplinary meeting, no customer complaints, no hearing after suspension and no evidence of redeployment were produced, and the warning letters were never signed or acknowledged. However, the court found the award of 12 months' compensation unjustified given the respondent's short service of two years and seven months, his lower cadre status without special skills, and his failure to challenge the suspension. The award was reduced to six months' salary (Kshs.44,400). The appeal succeeded only to that extent; the remainder was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the employer proved valid reasons and fair procedure for termination

Holding

The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving valid reasons for termination and a fair process; no minutes of the disciplinary meeting, no customer complaints, no hearing after suspension and no evidence of redeployment were produced

Reasoning

The appellant's sole witness admitted that minutes of the disciplinary meeting and customer complaints were not produced. There was no hearing after suspension and no evidence of redeployment. The warning letters were never signed or acknowledged by the respondent. The trial magistrate's finding that the burden of proof under section 45 of the Employment Act was not discharged therefore stood.

p. 3
02

Whether the award of 12 months' compensation was justified

Holding

The 12 months' compensation award was excessive and reduced to six months' salary (Kshs.44,400)

Reasoning

The respondent had worked for two years and seven months, was a lower cadre employee with no special skills, was working as a mason at trial, never challenged the suspension, and his only complaint was non-redeployment. Maximum compensation was therefore not deserved.

p. 3
03

Whether the Labour Office settlement barred the claim

Holding

The appeal on this ground was without merit; the rest of the appeal was dismissed

Reasoning

The appellant argued the tripartite agreement at the Labour Office binding the respondent to Kshs.8,833/55 in terminal dues extinguished the claim. The court did not accept this ground and found the balance of the appeal without merit, dismissing it.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Maximum compensation for unfair termination is not automatic; it must be justified by the length of service, skill level and conduct of the employee
  • A first appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The award of compensation for unfair termination is reduced to six months' salary (Kshs.44,400)
  2. 2.The rest of the appeal is found without merit and dismissed
  3. 3.No order as to costs
On appeal from
Principal Magistrate's Court, Nairobi
null
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the trial magistrate's judgment in an employment claim (employment and labour relations)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Securitas Kenya Limited v Nyakundi (Appeal E107 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 1259 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELRC Appeal No. E107 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1259/eng@2024-05-09

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