Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2024] KEELRC 2538 (KLR)

Lee Construction Limited v Moseti (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E017 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2538 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 October 2024
2,993 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that an employee who ignores a written instruction to resume work has absconded, not been constructively dismissed, and loses claims for salary.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri against a judgment of the lower court (Hon. Mararo, SPM) delivered on 26th September 2023, in which the respondent had been awarded Kshs.770,000 for constructive dismissal, notice pay and unpaid salary against Lee Construction Limited. The respondent was suspended for two weeks on 14th July 2020 over alleged misappropriation, with instructions to report to the Head Office on 27th July 2020. He claimed he reported and was verbally redirected to Nyamira with no duties, and that NSSF and NHIF remittances ceased, amounting to constructive dismissal. The employer maintained he absconded. The appellant framed five issues; the court distilled three: whether the respondent was constructively dismissed or absconded; whether any dismissal was unfair; and whether the impugned judgment should stand. Applying Selle v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd and the Coca Cola test for constructive dismissal, the court found the respondent's account of reporting back uncorroborated - he could not name the person he met or who redirected him - and concluded he defied a lawful command and voluntarily absconded to evade discipline. The court held the employer acted lawfully in stopping salary and statutory deductions for an absconding employee, found the trial court erred, allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court judgment of 26th September 2023, dismissed the respondent's suit with costs, and awarded the appellant costs of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondent was constructively dismissed or absconded work

Holding

The respondent was not constructively dismissed; he voluntarily absconded work from 27th July 2020 by defying the instruction to report to the Head Office.

Reasoning

The suspension letter required the respondent to report to the Head Office on 27th July 2020. His claim that he reported and was verbally referred to Nyamira was unsupported: he did not name the person he met or who redirected him. That evidentiary gap led the court to conclude he never reported back and absconded to evade disciplinary process, so constructive dismissal was not established.

p. 6
02

Entitlement to salary from August 2020 to 25th February 2021

Holding

The trial court erred in awarding Kshs.250,000 for seven months' salary; stopping salary for an absconding employee is lawful and statutory deductions cease accordingly.

Reasoning

Since the court found the respondent absconded from 27th July 2020, he performed no services thereafter. The trial court's reasoning - that the employer's stopping of salary and statutory remittances evidenced constructive dismissal - was rejected as an employee who absconds is not entitled to salary, and deductions can only be remitted when salary is paid.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an employee is suspended and directed to report back on a stated date and fails to do so without proof, he absconds; an employer may lawfully stop salary and statutory deductions for an absconding employee.
  • First appellate court must re-evaluate evidence and reach its own conclusions, making allowance for not having seen the witnesses.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is allowed as prayed
  2. 2.The judgment rendered by the lower court on 26th September 2023 is set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the respondent's suit with costs
  3. 3.The appellant is awarded costs of the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 51
  • Employment Actsection 10(5)
  • ELRC Procedure RulesRule 28(3)

Cases cited (11)

  • Margaret Wanjiru Ndirangu & 4 others v Attorney General
    [2015] eKLR
  • Herbert Wafula Waswa v Kenya Wildlife Services
    [2020] eKLR
  • Coca Cola East & Central Africa Limited v Maria Kagai Lugaga
    [2015] eKLR
  • David Nyangoto Osiemo v Radar Limited
    [2019] eKLR
  • Moses Gichuhi Gateru v Njuca Consolidated Company Limited
    [2019] eKLR
  • Milano Electronics v Dickson Nyasi Muhaso
    [2021] eKLR
  • Ahmed Salim Bahannan v Foton East Africa
    [2016] eKLR
  • James Angawa Atanda & 10 others v Judicial Service Commission
    [2017] eKLR
  • Western Excavation (ECC) Limited v Share
    [1978] QB 761
  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd
    [1968] EA 123
  • Coca Cola East & Central Africa Ltd v Maina Kagai Ligaga
    [2015] eKLR
On appeal from
Lower Court (Senior Principal Magistrate, Hon. Mararo, SPM)
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court from the lower court in an employment dispute

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lee Construction Limited v Moseti (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E017 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2538 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2538/eng@2024-10-18

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