Njue v Kenya Maritime Authority & another (Cause E026 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2090 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled an ex-Kenya Maritime Authority boss who refused to attend his disciplinary hearings on his own terms was lawfully dismissed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Fairness of the disciplinary process given non-supply of documents and the claimant's refusal to attend hearings
The process was fair; the respondents supplied documents and granted adjournments, but the claimant refused to attend on his own conditions and frustrated his employment
The court traced the back-and-forth correspondence: show cause notice, interdiction, three hearing invitations with adjournments and supply of 117 documents. The court held that under section 41 of the Employment Act the employer need only give notice and a hearing; shop-floor procedures are not criminal proceedings requiring strict evidence. The claimant's insistence on his own terms before attending, despite adjournments and document supply, amounted to frustrating his employment.
Whether the Board was properly constituted following expiry of the Chairperson's term
The Board was properly constituted; in the absence of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson members may elect a session chair under paragraph 3(6) of the Second Schedule to the Kenya Maritime Authority Act
The respondents showed that under paragraph 3(6) of the Second Schedule and the Mwongozo Code, members present elect a session chair when the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson are absent, and minutes were signed by such a session chair. In any event, the claimant's own refusal to engage with the disciplinary process precluded him from attacking the board's composition at determination stage.
Whether summary dismissal was substantively justified
The dismissal on 16 September 2022 was justified and lawful, the claimant having failed to attend hearings or answer the allegations despite invitations
Section 44(4)(e) permits summary dismissal for failure to take lawful and proper directions. The claimant was invited three times, granted adjournments and supplied documents, yet refused to attend. Terminal dues had been paid and accepted without challenge, and accrued benefits settled.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who squanders the opportunity to attend a disciplinary hearing by making unreasonable demands cannot later claim unfair termination
- Section 41 of the Employment Act requires notice of allegations and an opportunity to respond, not strict evidence akin to criminal proceedings
- An employee under interdiction remains bound by lawful and proper directions of the employer
- Summary dismissal is permitted where an employee fails to take lawful and proper directions
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed
- 2.Costs to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution and the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (employment dispute)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njue v Kenya Maritime Authority & another (Cause E026 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2090 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Mombasa ELRC Claim (memorandum of claim following striking out of Petition No E012 of 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2090/eng@2024-07-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.