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 AllowedMemorandum of Claim dated October 5, 2016 (ELRC)· [2024] KEELRC 2478 (KLR)

Omenjo v Platinum Credit Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 2293 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 2478 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 September 2024
OKOcharo Kebira
5,597 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~22 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled Platinum Credit's dismissal of an employee was unfair, awarding compensation and dismissing the company's Kshs. 4.3 million counterclaim.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, formerly employed by the Respondent as a Collections Officer for the Nyanza region, was suspended on 8th April 2016 pending investigations into fraud cases concerning staff loans at Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology, and was summarily dismissed by a letter dated 29th July 2016. He sued for wrongful termination, salary, severance, leave days, general and exemplary damages. The Respondent denied unfair dismissal and counterclaimed for Kshs. 4,297,000 in losses allegedly occasioned by loans booked for ghost workers. The Court framed three issues: unfair termination, entitlement to reliefs, and the counterclaim. On procedural fairness, the Court found the Respondent failed to prove that the Claimant was invited to or attended any disciplinary hearing; the unsigned purported minutes were found to be an attempt to sanitise an unfair procedure, and the Respondent continued investigating after the dismissal. On substantive fairness, the fraud allegation was held to rest on speculation, not sufficient evidence, and the Court declined to go outside the reason advanced by the Respondent. The dismissal was thus held unfair both procedurally and substantively. The Court awarded salary for the four-month suspension (Kshs. 155,364 per the final settlement letter), six accrued leave days (Kshs. 9,710), four months' gross salary as compensatory relief under Section 49(1)(c), interest, and a Certificate of Service. Exemplary damages were refused under the Rookes v Barnard criteria. The counterclaim was dismissed for failure to prove special damages. The Respondent was ordered to bear costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent unfairly terminated the Claimant's employment

Holding

The summary dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. No valid disciplinary hearing was conducted and the reason advanced (fraud) was not proved.

Reasoning

The Court found the Claimant established a prima facie case of unfair dismissal under Section 47(5). The Respondent failed to prove that the Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing or notified of the conclusion of investigations. The unsigned purported minutes were found not to have the character of genuine disciplinary hearing minutes. On substantive fairness, the allegation of fraud lacked sufficient evidence. The continued investigation after dismissal further confirmed the procedural irregularity.

p. 9
02

Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought

Holding

Partially. The Court awarded salary for the suspension period, leave days, four months' compensation, and a Certificate of Service, but declined exemplary damages and other unproved reliefs.

Reasoning

The Court held that suspension with nil pay is not permitted in law and that the Respondent's final settlement letter admitted liability for salary from April to July 2016 and accrued leave days. Compensation of four months' gross salary was awarded under Section 49(1)(c), taking into account the short tenure, the breach of procedural fairness, and the Respondent's attempt to mislead the Court. Exemplary damages were declined for lack of evidence meeting the Rookes v Barnard criteria. A Certificate of Service was granted as of right under Section 51.

p. 11
03

Whether the Respondent's Counterclaim is merited

Holding

Not merited. Dismissed with costs.

Reasoning

Since the dismissal was not substantively justified, the counterclaim could not stand. Further, the claimed sum of Kshs. 4,297,000 was special damage requiring specific proof, which the Respondent failed to provide.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • A fair termination must embody both procedural and substantive fairness; absence of either renders the termination unfair
  • Where an employee contests the existence of a disciplinary hearing, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate that the employee was properly invited, informed of the accusations, and apprised of the right of accompaniment
  • An allegation of fraud against an employee is a grave accusation that must be justified with sufficient evidence, not speculation
  • The court cannot go outside the reason for dismissal advanced by the employer to interrogate other reasons
  • The law does not allow suspension with nil pay
  • A counterclaim for a specific monetary sum is in the character of special damage and must be specifically proved

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the summary dismissal against the Claimant was unfair
  2. 2.The Claimant be paid unpaid leave days (6 days) of Kshs. 9,710
  3. 3.Compensation for unfair termination of Kshs. 155,364 (Kshs. 38,841 x 4 months)
  4. 4.The Claimant be issued with a Certificate of Service within 30 days of the Judgment
  5. 5.Interest on the monetary awards at Court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
  6. 6.The Respondent to bear the costs of the suit
  7. 7.The Respondent's Counterclaim is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act 2007Section 45(1) and (2)
  • Employment Act 2007Section 47(5)
  • Employment Act 2007Section 41
  • Employment Act 2007Section 43
  • Employment Act 2007Section 45(7)
  • Employment Act 2007Section 28
  • Employment Act 2007Section 49(1)(c)
  • Employment Act 2007Section 51

Cases cited (1)

  • Rookes vs Barnard
    [1964] I ALL ER 367
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act 2007 (Sections 41, 43, 45, 47(5), 49, 51 applied)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Omenjo v Platinum Credit Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 2293 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 2478 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Memorandum of Claim dated October 5, 2016 (ELRC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2478/eng@2024-09-26

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