Kimemia v Kidde - Fenwal Inc & another (Cause 111 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2163 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that cutting off a remote worker's phone and internet made his dismissal unfair, awarding him four months' salary.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Identity of the employer
The Claimant was employed by Career Directions Limited from 16th November 2015 as a preparatory/recruitment arrangement, and by UTC Climate, Controls & Security [CCS] and its subsidiary Kidde-Fenwal Inc. effective 1st January 2016.
The offer and initial contract were authored by Career Directions, which fixed his terms. The Career Directions contract was a pathway to direct employment. The unsigned 1st January 2016 draft was invalid under Section 9(3) of the Employment Act, but the executed 25th March 2016 contract with CCS/Kidde-Fenwal, back-dated to 1st January 2016, established direct employment with the Respondents.
Fairness of procedure
The disciplinary procedure met the statutory minimum standards of fairness under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.
The Claimant received a letter to show cause, responded, was invited to a disciplinary hearing with date, venue and attendees disclosed, was advised he could bring a colleague, was heard, and did not complain of inadequate time or seek postponement. The failure to sign minutes did not undermine the fairness of the hearing.
Valid reason for termination
No valid reason was established; the absenteeism complained of was caused by the Respondents' own failure to pay the Claimant's phone and internet bills.
The Claimant was a remote employee whose essential tools were phone and internet, which the Respondents had agreed to reimburse. They had paid prior Airtel invoices without complaint but stonewalled when the bill reached Kshs. 898,324. Suggesting he work from a coffee shop was not adequate facilitation of remote working, so the failure to attend revenue calls was attributable to the Respondents.
Remedies
Compensation of 4 months' salary under Section 49 of the Employment Act; most monetary prayers declined.
The Claimant served about 1 year 7 months on an indeterminate contract, did not cause or contribute to the termination, and secured alternative employment. Leave pay and medical cover were subsumed in acknowledged terminal dues; the unpaid phone bill remained Airtel's civil debt; the general damages claim was a disproportionate 'cash-grab' style claim with no evidential support.
Legal principles established
#- An employer of a remote employee must facilitate remote working by paying the agreed tools-of-work expenses; failure to do so deprives a termination of valid reason
- A communication allowance of Kshs. 20,000 was a personal benefit and not intended for official use where a reimbursement system for phone and internet existed
- A contract not signed by the employee is not a valid contract of employment under Section 9(3) of the Employment Act
- Remedies for employment wrongs must remain proportionate to economic damage sustained
Court orders
#- 1.Declared that termination of the Claimant's contract was unfair and unlawful
- 2.The Respondents shall pay to the Claimant equivalent of 4 months' salary in compensation for unfair and unlawful termination at Kshs. 3,209,036
- 3.Costs to the Claimant
- 4.Interest allowed at court rate, from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (Sections 41, 43, 45, 47 and 49)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimemia v Kidde - Fenwal Inc & another (Cause 111 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2163 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2163/eng@2024-08-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.