Nyakundi v House of Leather t/a Levs Trading Company Limited (Cause 722 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 2167 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that firing an employee without a proper disciplinary hearing and proof of wrongdoing was unfair, awarding the worker Kshs 272,290.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the summary dismissal
Termination was procedurally flawed: no show-cause letter, no investigation, no disciplinary hearing, and the Director's interrogation did not satisfy Section 41 of the Employment Act.
The only process preceding dismissal was an interrogation led by the Director, whose alleged deception of him was itself a ground of dismissal. There was no record of a show-cause letter or investigation, no specified charges, no independent disciplinary panel, and no advisement of the right to be accompanied by a colleague or union representative. Even after the alleged absconding, the Respondent made no effort to convene a hearing despite knowing how to reach the Claimant through his brothers.
Substantive justification for termination
No valid reason was established; the theft, lying and absconding allegations were unproved, and the delivery note named the driver, not the Claimant.
The delivery note was in the name of driver Moses Ng'ang'a, who was not called to link the Claimant to any mischief. The alleged confession to the Managing Director was not documented and the Managing Director did not testify. The pleaded grounds were generic accusations incapable of constituting valid reasons. Termination therefore fell short of the standards under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Whether the Claimant absconded or was told to stay away
The Court preferred the Claimant's version that he was advised to stay away pending communication, and rejected the absconding narrative as implausible.
After an interrogation, it was implausible that the Respondent expected the Claimant to report to work 'as usual' the following day; he would have been awaiting the Director's findings. If he had genuinely absconded, the Respondent, which knew his brothers were its employees, could still have reached him for a disciplinary hearing.
Withholding of November 2015 salary
Withholding was unjustified since no theft by the Claimant was proved; the salary had to be paid.
The Respondent pleaded that the salary was withheld to recover the cost of 48 flowers allegedly stolen by the Claimant, but the Court found no evidence of theft. Reliance on Section 19(1) of the Employment Act to justify the withholding was therefore unsustainable.
Legal principles established
#- An interrogation by a Director is not a disciplinary hearing; procedural fairness under Section 41 of the Employment Act requires a properly convened disciplinary forum with specified charges and the right to be accompanied.
- Omnibus or generic accusations such as indiscipline, dishonesty, negligence, recklessness and breach of conduct cannot constitute valid reasons for termination.
Court orders
#- 1.It is declared that termination of the Claimant's contract by the Respondent was unfair and unlawful.
- 2.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant equivalent of 12 months' salary in compensation for unfair termination at Kshs 233,220; notice at Kshs 19,435; and salary for the month of November 2015 at Kshs 19,435 – total Kshs 272,290.
- 3.Costs to the Claimant.
- 4.Interest granted at court rates, from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Sections 41, 43, 45 and 19(1) applied)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyakundi v House of Leather t/a Levs Trading Company Limited (Cause 722 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 2167 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2167/eng@2024-08-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.