Paul Kipkemoi Lelei v Laminate Tube Industries Limited [2017] KEELRC 2004 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Claimant's employment was unfairly terminated
- 2.What are the appropriate remedies/orders
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was unfair
The termination was procedurally unfair and invalid because the employer failed to give the real reason (performance) and did not afford the Claimant an opportunity to make representations as required by sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007
The termination letter grounded dismissal on a contractual notice provision, but under cross-examination the Respondent's HR Manager stated the reason was performance. The Court held that sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007 displaced the common law freedom to terminate on notice without cause. Had performance been the true reason, the Claimant was entitled to be informed and heard; he was given neither, rendering the termination procedurally unfair and invalid.
Appropriate compensation for unfair termination
Maximum compensation of twelve months' gross wages (Kshs 134,748/-) was appropriate given about 10 years of service
Considering the Claimant's length of service of about 10 years, the Court found the maximum compensation fair. Gross wage at separation was Kshs 11,229/-, yielding an award of Kshs 134,748/-. The Court also awarded the November 2013 wage of Kshs 373/30 but declined October 2013 wages, pay in lieu of notice and gratuity as already paid or not proved.
Legal principles established
#- Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007 radically altered the common law position: an employer must give reasons for termination and afford the employee an opportunity to make representations
- Termination of an employee without giving reasons or an opportunity to be heard is procedurally unfair and invalid
Court orders
#- 1.Respondent to pay Claimant November 2013 wage of Kshs 373/30
- 2.Respondent to pay compensation of Kshs 134,748/-
- 3.Total award of Kshs 135,121/30
- 4.Claimant to have costs on half scale
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (employment relationship); specific enabling article not cited in the judgment
Relief refused
#Wages for October 2013
Claimant was paid and acknowledged receipt of Kshs 9,765/- as October 2013 wages
Gratuity/service pay
Claimant was a contributor/member of the National Social Security Fund, and no contractual gratuity was proved
Pay in lieu of notice
Claimant was paid and acknowledged receipt of Kshs 9,765/- as 1 month pay in lieu of notice
Costs
Claimant to have costs on half scale
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.
the legal implication of section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007 as read with sections 43 and 45 have radically shifted the legal framework and it is imperative that the employee is given reasons and afforded an opportunity to make representations
The Court therefore can conclude that the termination of the Claimant’s contract was not only procedurally unfair, but it was anchored on a common law position which has been altered by statute and therefore invalid
The Court finds and holds that the termination of the Claimant’s contract was not only procedurally unfair but invalid, and the Court awards him and orders the Respondent to pay him
Claimant to have costs on half scale
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Paul Kipkemoi Lelei v Laminate Tube Industries Limited [2017] KEELRC 2004 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/2004/eng@2017-11-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.