Julius Njagi Mbui v Kenya Nut Company Limited [2018] KEELRC 50 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a former worker's unfair dismissal claim because his own testimony contradicted his case, letting his employer's summary dismissal under the Employment Act stand.
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 termination of the employment of the claimant by the respondent was wrongful, unfair and unlawful?
- 2.Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought?
- 3.Who bears the costs of this claim?
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was wrongful, unfair and unlawful
The termination was lawful; the claimant failed to rebut the respondent's case of summary dismissal under section 44 of the Employment Act, 2007 for leaving the coffee drying area unguarded and causing loss.
The court scrutinised the claimant's testimony and found it inconsistent: he pleaded oral termination but testified he was dismissed by letter dated 20th May, 2009. On cross-examination he admitted signing a certificate of clearance dated 26th June, 2009 and receiving Kshs.12,380.00 as total terminal dues. He did not rebut the respondent's case of neglect and absconding duty occasioning theft of coffee parchment. Accordingly the court found lawful termination.
Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought
The claimant is not entitled to the relief sought as he lost on the issue of unlawful termination.
The claimant sought service pay, holiday pay, notice pay and damages for unfair termination. Because the court found the termination lawful, the claimant became disentitled to all relief flowing from unfair termination. The court therefore dismissed the claim.
Who bears the costs of the claim
Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
Although the claim was dismissed, the court declined to award costs to the respondent, instead ordering each party to bear their own costs of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant who fails to prove unfair termination is disentitled to the relief sought
- Inconsistent and contradictory testimony undermines a claimant's case and failure to rebut the employer's account of summary dismissal results in a finding of lawful termination
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed with orders that each party bears their costs of the same.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Industrial Court (Employment Act, 2007 invoked)
Relief refused
#Service pay of Kshs.990,000 for 15 years
The court found the termination lawful, disentitling the claimant to relief
Payment for worked holidays of Kshs.151,920
Claim dismissed; claimant's testimony inconsistent and he did not rebut the respondent's case
Three months' notice pay of Kshs.16,500 and damages for unfair termination
The court found lawful summary dismissal for breach of section 44 of the Employment Act, 2007
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs of the claim
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.
I therefore find a case of lawful termination of the employment of the claimant by the respondent and hold as such.
Having lost on a case of unlawful termination of employment, he becomes disentitled to the relief sought.
I am therefore inclined to dismiss the claim with orders that each party bears their costs of the same.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records contradictory signing/delivery clauses and lists two judges, but only D.K. Njagi Marete is identified as having authored the judgment.
The judgment inconsistently refers to the claimant's dismissal as oral (as pleaded) and by letter dated 20th May, 2009 (as testified).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Julius Njagi Mbui v Kenya Nut Company Limited [2018] KEELRC 50 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 2134 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/50/eng@2018-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.