Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v KK Security Services Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E039 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1701 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a security guard's dismissal for lateness and intoxication but ordered his employer to pay about Kshs 64,635 in unpaid dues plus costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the reason for the grievant's dismissal was valid
The court found valid reasons existed for the dismissal, based on the grievant's admitted lateness, and did not find the medical report contradictory.
The grievant admitted in cross-examination that he was due at 6 am but reported at 6.45 am. The court held lateness was a ground for summary dismissal under section 44 of the Employment Act. Although the claimant alleged the Mediheal blood test results were contradictory (different alcohol readings, delayed testing, wrong phone number), the court examined the documents and found them not contradictory, concluding the intoxication evidence stood and lateness independently justified dismissal.
Whether a fair procedure was followed before termination
The court found fair procedure was followed; the grievant was invited to a disciplinary hearing and the minutes were produced in court.
The grievant conceded he was taken through a disciplinary process. He was invited by letter dated 25th February 2020, and minutes of the hearing that proceeded on 10th March 2020 were produced in court by the grievant. Combined with the finding of valid reason under section 45(2) of the Employment Act, the court returned the verdict that the dismissal was fair and justified, defeating the unfair termination claim and compensation.
What reliefs, if any, was the grievant entitled to
Notice pay and Legal Notice No. 63 of 2003 leave entitlements refused; pro rata leave pay of Kshs 5,611, days worked unpaid of Kshs 8,308.50 and overtime of Kshs 50,715.70 awarded.
Having found the dismissal fair, notice pay and statutory maximum compensation were refused. Leave was assessed under section 28 of the Employment Act, not the Legal Notice, yielding pro rata leave of Kshs 5,611. Although the respondent said it paid the conciliator's recommended dues, the court found no evidence of such payment, so it awarded the pleaded unpaid February 2020 days and overtime pay.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who admits reporting to work late provides a valid ground for summary dismissal under section 44 of the Employment Act, and dismissal effected through a fair disciplinary process is justified.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave pay of Kshs 5,611 for the period 1st August 2019 to 1st March 2020 on pro rata basis
- 2.Salary for days worked and not paid in March 2020 of Kshs 8,308.50
- 3.Overtime pay of Kshs 50,715.70
- 4.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v KK Security Services Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E039 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1701 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELRC Cause (Nakuru) of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1701/eng@2024-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.