[2020] KEELRC 1818 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant's employment was terminated without written notice or a hearing, contrary to Sections 35(1) and 41 of the Employment Act, 2007. The respondents failed to attend the hearing and did not provide evidence to substantiate their claims of poor performance or theft. As such, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELRC 1818 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kennedy Libese Kidake; Respondent: Gilbert Ngesu Mwendwa; Respondent: Pamela Ngesu
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1748 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the claimant; unfair termination declared; compensation and terminal dues awarded.
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Compensation for Dismissal, Statutory Notice Requirements, Burden of Proof, Terminal Dues, Conciliation Process
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kennedy Libese Kidake
Applicant
Gilbert Ngesu Mwendwa
Respondent
Pamela Ngesu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant's employment was unfairly terminated contrary to the Employment Act, 2007.
- 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and terminal dues as computed by the Labour Office.
- 3 Whether the respondents discharged their burden of proof regarding the reasons for termination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant's employment was terminated without written notice or a hearing, contrary to Sections 35(1) and 41 of the Employment Act, 2007. The respondents failed to attend the hearing and did not provide evidence to substantiate their claims of poor performance or theft. As such, the respondents did not discharge the statutory burden of proof under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. The court accepted the Labour Office's computation of terminal dues and underpayments, as the claimant did not dispute these figures and the respondents had conceded to the process. The court therefore declared the termination unfair and awarded the claimant compensation...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the claimant; unfair termination declared; compensation and terminal dues awarded.
Orders
- The respondents shall pay the claimant Kshs 65,472 as compensation for unfair termination.
- The respondents shall pay the claimant Kshs 93,286 as terminal dues.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1748 OF 2015
KENNEDY LIBESE KIDAKE..............................................................CLAIMANT
v
GILBERT NGESU MWENDWA................................................1st RESPONDENT
PAMELA NGESU.......................................................................2nd RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. This Cause was heard on 28 November 2019. Despite the Respondents advocate on record acknowledging receipt of a hearing notice on 2 August 2019, the Respondents and their advocate did not attend the hearing.
2. The Claimant gave sworn testimony and filed his submissions on 13 December 2019.
3. The Court has considered the pleadings, evidence, submissions and the proposed Issues as filed in Court by the Claimant on 7 September 2017.
Unfair termination
4. The Claimant was employed as a home caretaker by the Respondents on 24 February 2005.
5. According to the Claimant, on 17 September 2014, he sought for leave and he agreed with the Respondents to proceed on leave on 6 November 2014, but come that day, the Respondents computed his terminal dues and informed him that his services were no longer required.
6. Section 35(1) of the Employment Act, 2007 envisages written notice of termination of employment while section 41 contemplates a hearing.
7. There was no evidence of written notice or a hearing and the Court, therefore, finds that the Claimant’s employment was terminated unfairly.
8. In their Response, the Respondents pleaded that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was on account of poor performance and theft.
9. The Respondents did not attend the hearing to prove that they terminated the Claimant’s on account of performance and/or theft and, the Court in the circumstances conclude that the Respondents failed to discharge the burden placed on them by sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007.
Compensation
10. The Claimant served the Respondents for about 9 years, and in consideration of the length of service, the Court is of the view that the equivalent of 6 months wages as compensation would be fair (prescribed minimum monthly wage at separation was Kshs 10,912/- according to computations by Labour Office).
Underpayment and dues
11. The Claimant admitted that he reported a dispute to the Ministry of Labour.
12. The Respondents conceded in the Response that the Claimant reported a dispute to the Ministry of Labour and that the Labour Office computed the amount of dues (underpayments, earned wages, pay in lieu of notice and service pay) due to the Claimant as Kshs 98,286/- out of which the Claimant was paid an advance of Kshs 5,000/-.
13. Considering that the Claimant did not join Issue with the contention by the Respondents on pre-litigation conciliation, the Court will adopt and award the computations on terminal dues/underpayments and leave by the Labour Office.
Conclusion and Orders
14. The Court finds and declares that the Respondents unfairly terminated the Claimant’s employment and awards him
(a) Compensation Kshs 65,472/-
(b) Terminal dues Kshs 93,286/-
TOTAL Kshs 158,758/-
15. Claimant to have costs on a half-scale.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nairobi on this 31st day of January 2020.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimant Mr. Nyasimi instructed by Nchogu, Omwanza & Nyasimi Advocates
For Respondent Ekuru Aukot & Co. Advocates
Court Assistant Judy Maina