Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause 2407 of 2017 (referenced authority); the Claimant's Statement of Claim dated 19.06.2017, filed 27.07.2017· [2024] KEELRC 2511 (KLR)

Onyango v Africa Apparel Epz LImited (Cause 1463 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 2511 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 October 2024
2,530 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled an employee's one-day absence, with an explanation, cannot justify firing without a hearing, awarding the worker compensation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent from 29th November 2010 as a mechanic operator/presser at a monthly salary of KShs. 22,102.15, sued for a declaration that his termination was unlawful and for dues of KShs. 490,000. He was to resume duty on 3rd January 2017 after Christmas holidays but returned on 5th January 2017 owing to his father's illness, which he reported to his line clerk by phone. He was asked to explain his absence, his job card was withdrawn, and his employment was verbally terminated on 5th February 2017 without a disciplinary hearing. The Respondent maintained he deserted duty and suffered production losses, and that untaken leave days do not carry over under its policy. The court framed two issues: the fairness of the termination and entitlement to reliefs. On fairness, the court held the termination procedurally unfair because Section 41's mandatory notification and hearing components were wholly ignored, and substantively unjustified because the Respondent failed to prove the reason for termination under Section 43; its evidence was sketchy, contradicted its own pleadings, and it produced no attendance register. Following Mariita v Leading Locks & Access Systems, the court held that an employer alleging desertion must show efforts to reach the employee. The Claimant's one-day absence with a reasonable explanation could not ground termination. Judgment was entered for the Claimant: a declaration of unfair termination, five months' gross salary (KShs. 110,510.75) as compensation under Section 49para 1[c], one month's notice pay (KShs. 22,102.15) and leave compensation (KShs. 107,110.42) on admissions, plus costs and interest.

Key legal issues

#
01

Procedural fairness of the termination

Holding

The termination was procedurally unfair as the Claimant was never accorded a hearing as required by Section 41 of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

Section 41 mandates notification of the intended action and grounds, an adequate opportunity to make representations, the right to be accompanied by a colleague or union representative, and consideration of those representations. The Respondent claimed a hearing was impossible because the Claimant had deserted duty and could not be reached, yet it admitted in its pleadings that the employment was terminated on 5th February 2017, by which date the Claimant had reported back and was available. The Respondent therefore failed to follow the mandatory procedure.

p. 3
02

Substantive justification for the termination

Holding

The termination was substantively unjustified; the alleged reason (desertion) was not proved to be valid and fair.

Reasoning

Section 43 places the burden on the employer to prove the reason for termination, failing which the termination is unfair under Section 45. The Respondent's evidence on how and when the termination occurred was sketchy and contradicted its pleadings. The Claimant was absent for only one day and explained his absence (his father's illness); the Respondent produced no attendance records to rebut this. No reasonable employer could have terminated him for desertion on those facts.

p. 5
03

Entitlement to reliefs

Holding

The Claimant was granted notice pay and compensation for 22 untaken leave days on the basis of the Respondent's admissions in the termination letter, salary for 14 days worked as unchallenged, and five months' gross salary as compensation for unfair termination under Section 49para 1[c].

Reasoning

The termination letter admitted the Claimant's entitlement to one month's notice pay and compensation for 22 outstanding leave days, so those were granted on admission. The compensatory award under Section 49para 1[c] is discretionary; considering the failure of procedural and substantive fairness, the attempted change of the Claimant's role without legal basis, and the length of service, five months' gross salary was appropriate.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Fairness of termination involves both procedural fairness under Section 41 and substantive justification under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
  • An employer alleging desertion must demonstrate the efforts made to reach out to the employee and to intimate that termination was being considered.
  • An employer who puts forth sketchy evidence contradicting its pleadings cannot be held to have discharged the legal burden of proving the reason for termination.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the termination of his employment was unfair
  2. 2.Compensation for unfair termination of employment pursuant to Section 49[1][c] of the Employment Act, five months' gross salary, KShs. 110,510.75
  3. 3.Salary in lieu of notice, KShs. 22,102.15
  4. 4.Compensation for earned but untaken leave days, KShs. 107,110.42
  5. 5.Costs of this suit
  6. 6.Interest on the amounts awarded at court rates from the date of Judgment till full payment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 43
  • Employment ActSection 45 including 45[2] and 2[b][i] and [ii]
  • Employment ActSection 35
  • Employment ActSection 49[1][c]
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B

Cases cited (1)

  • Mariita v Leading Locks & Access Systems
    [Cause 2407 of 2017] [2022] KEELRC 1194 [KLR]
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (Sections 35, 41, 43, 45, 49[1][c]) over a claim of unfair termination

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Onyango v Africa Apparel Epz LImited (Cause 1463 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 2511 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause 2407 of 2017 (referenced authority); the Claimant's Statement of Claim dated 19.06.2017, filed 27.07.2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2511/eng@2024-10-18

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