Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. 156 of 2007

LEONARD ODINDI V KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY [2011] KECA 86 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
2 December 2011
SBS.E.O. BosireJOJ.W. Onyango OtienoAVAlnashir Visram
2,991 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

#

Even when an employer retires an employee based on a false medical report, Kenyan courts limit compensation to contractual entitlements, not future salary.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal to the Court of Appeal at Mombasa against the decision of Sergon J. in H.C.C.C. No. 128 of 2003, in which the trial judge allowed only the balance of one month's pay in lieu of notice and dismissed the balance of the appellant's claim arising from his retirement on medical grounds. The respondent had retired the appellant relying on a Medical Board report of 28 October 2002, but the doctors who signed it conceded that no Medical Board ever met; the High Court found the retirement premature and the report professionally improper. On appeal, the Court first declined to strike out the appeal on the respondent's contention that the filing advocate lacked a practising certificate, holding that a statement from the bar, untested and unsupported by a striking-out application, was insufficient conjecture to justify so draconian a remedy. On the merits, the Court affirmed that the dismissal was wrongful and based on falsehood, and observed that its malicious element could in principle attract general damages subject to proven loss. However, the appellant's claim for nine years' salary and house, leave and medical allowances was a claim in special damages, imperfectly pleaded and unproven; allowances attach to serving employees only; and general damages are not generally available in master-servant contractual disputes. Applying Kenya Ports Authority v Edward Otieno and Dalmas Ogoye, the Court affirmed the trial judge's limitation of recovery to contractual entitlements and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the appeal was competent, having regard to the contention that the notice of appeal was filed by a firm whose partner lacked a current practising certificate
  2. 2.Whether the appellant, whose retirement on medical grounds was found to be based on a false medical report, was entitled to salary, leave, house and medical allowances for the unexpired period of service
  3. 3.Whether the appellant was entitled to general damages for premature retirement on the ground of malice
  4. 4.Whether the learned trial judge erred in relying on Kenya Ports Authority v Edward Otieno and related authority

Key legal issues

#
01

Competence of the appeal where the filing advocate's practising status is challenged

Holding

The court declined to strike out the appeal on the strength of a statement from the bar; the question whether the signatory held a practising certificate was one of fact not properly before the court absent a striking-out application, and a multi-partner firm cannot be treated as non-existent merely because one partner lacked a certificate.

Reasoning

The respondent never filed a striking-out application; the allegation rested on information from the Law Society of Kenya and counsel's submissions. The court could not act on conjecture. Even if one partner lacked a certificate, the firm had other advocates and the signature was unproven. Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Article 159(1)(d) applied. The draconian remedy of striking out is reserved for clear cases.

p. 4
02

Measure of recovery for wrongful termination on false medical grounds

Holding

The appellant's dismissal was wrongful and without legal or factual basis because no Medical Board examined him and the medical report was admitted to be false; however his recovery was limited to contractual entitlements, and his claims for nine years' salary and allowances failed for want of proof and because allowances are for serving employees.

Reasoning

The trial judge correctly applied the established principle limiting damages to contractual sums. Although the malicious nature of the termination could have attracted general damages subject to proven loss, the appellant pleaded no evidence of loss, disclosed no particulars, and had already received about KShs.1.98 million including pension. Loss over nine unexpired years was not easily quantifiable given imponderables such as promotion, illness or job loss.

p. 4
03

Whether general damages lie for premature retirement

Holding

General damages for premature retirement were refused: they are not generally payable in master-servant disputes, and where malice might attract them, quantum depends on proven loss which was absent here.

Reasoning

The claim was essentially one for special damages, quantifiable and required to be specifically pleaded; allowing it would leave no room for general damages. The appellant received a premature lump-sum pension provision which he failed to disclose in pleadings and evidence, an element of bad faith that would have justified dismissal had it been before the trial judge.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee wrongfully or unlawfully terminated is entitled only to such sums as would have been payable had the contract been lawfully terminated, not earnings to retirement age
  • No general damages are payable in master-servant contractual disputes, save where loss is proven
  • House, medical and similar allowances are payable to serving employees only and cannot be claimed by one who has ceased working
  • Striking out an appeal on grounds of an advocate's lack of a practising certificate cannot rest on unproven statements from the bar; it is reserved for clear cases
  • A dismissal of an employee founded on a false medical ground is wrongful, may evince malice, and is not merely a question of notice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

SB
majority

Wrote the judgment

JO
majority

Wrote the judgment

AV
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
H.C.C.C. No. 128 of 2003
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (the court invokes sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Article 159(1)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 in the competence discussion)

Relief refused

#

Substituted judgment of KShs.3,007,800 for salary, house, leave and medical allowances for 9 years

The claim was one for special damages which was not specifically pleaded or proved; allowances are payable only to serving employees and the appellant's loss was not easily quantifiable

p. 5

General damages for premature retirement

General damages are not payable in master-servant disputes; and although malice could have attracted damages, the appellant adduced no evidence of proven loss

p. 3

Costs

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; the suit costs had been given to the plaintiff in the High Court and were not disturbed

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

a person whose services have been wrongfully or unlawfully terminated would only be entitled to payment of such sums as he would have been paid had the termination been done in accordance with his contract of service.
p. 5Measure of damages for wrongful termination
Striking out an appeal is a draconian measure which in our view, should be resorted to in clear cases.
p. 4Striking out appeals for want of advocate's practising certificate
The dismissal was not summary in nature but was based on falsehood.
p. 4Termination founded on false medical report
In view of the foregoing, we have no basis for allowing this appeal, and in view of the circumstances of the case we dismiss the appeal but with no order as to costs.
p. 5Final orders and costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment inconsistently renders the name of the appellant's firm of advocates ('Ong'era Adembesa & Co.', 'Ong\'era Adembeso and Co.', 'Ong'era Adembesa and Co. Advocates')

minor

The Constitution provision is misprinted as 'Act 159(1)(d)' where Article 159(1)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 is meant

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (4)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "LEONARD ODINDI V KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY [2011] KECA 86 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2011). Civil Appeal No. 156 of 2007. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2011/86/eng@2011-12-02

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