Nyaberi & 5 others v Mediheal Hospital Nakuru (Cause 377 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 2860 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded six hospital workers roughly ten months' salary each after finding they were fired without notice, evidence, or a fair hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimants were constructively dismissed
No constructive dismissal; the claimants were orally dismissed outright.
Constructive dismissal occurs where an employer makes conditions so intolerable that the employee resigns. Here the claimants did not resign; they were orally terminated after the patient-escape incidents. The proper question was therefore whether the oral dismissal was unfair and unlawful, not whether there was constructive dismissal.
Whether there was a valid reason for dismissal (substantive fairness)
No valid reason was demonstrated; no evidence proved the claimants colluded with or failed to prevent the patients' escape.
The respondent alleged collusion and failure to follow patient attendance SOPs but adduced no evidence. The claimants were nurses, not security personnel, and the respondent's own letter showed it blamed the contracted security firm. Guarding discharged patients was not their mandate.
Whether the dismissal followed fair procedure
The dismissal was procedurally unfair; no show-cause letters, no invitation to the hearing, and the hearing proceeded in the claimants' absence.
Sections 41, 43, 44 and 45 of the Employment Act require notice, a hearing and the right to be accompanied. The claimants testified they were never served with show-cause letters nor invited, and their request to attend as a group with accompaniment was refused. This evidence was unrebutted as the respondent called no witnesses.
Entitlement to reliefs
March/April 2017 salaries, 6th claimant's October/November 2017 salary less Kshs5,000 paid, one month's notice pay, and ten months' compensation awarded; token, service pay and constructive-dismissal declaration refused.
Unpaid salaries were unrebutted, the respondent being custodian of records. Notice pay was due for month-to-month contracts. Compensation was fixed at ten months applying Section 49(4) factors. Service pay was barred by NSSF contributions and the token was not contractual.
Legal principles established
#- Although an employer files no evidence, the claimant must still prove their case on a balance of probabilities.
- Constructive dismissal requires resignation by the employee forced by intolerable conditions; where the employee was orally dismissed, the question is unfair dismissal, not constructive dismissal.
- Rules of natural justice apply in disciplinary hearings; an employer must establish a prima facie case and accord the employee a hearing before dismissal.
- Where the respondent is custodian of employment records and produces no records showing payment, the claim for unpaid salaries is allowed.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration be and is hereby issued that the dismissal of the claimants by the respondent was wrongful, unfair, and unlawful.
- 2.The 1st to 5th claimants awarded March & April 2017 salaries (Kshs42,096; Kshs50,158; Kshs37,700; Kshs85,192; Kshs87,878 respectively).
- 3.The 6th claimant awarded October and November 2017 salary of Kshs34,400 less Kshs5,000 paid, i.e. Kshs29,400.
- 4.The claimants awarded one month's gross salary in lieu of notice each (Kshs21,048; Kshs25,079; Kshs18,850; Kshs42,596; Kshs43,939; Kshs17,200).
- 5.The claimants awarded compensation for wrongful dismissal equivalent to ten months' gross salary each (Kshs210,048; Kshs250,790; Kshs188,500; Kshs425,960; Kshs439,390; Kshs172,000) together with interest from the date of judgment, less statutory deductions.
- 6.Certificates of service to be issued by the respondent and delivered to claimants' counsel within 30 days of judgment.
- 7.Costs of the cause to the claimants.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Employment Act; Constitution Article 162(2) implied - not expressly stated in judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyaberi & 5 others v Mediheal Hospital Nakuru (Cause 377 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 2860 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No 377 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2860/eng@2024-11-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.