Daniel Mungai Karanja v Attorney General & another [2018] KEELRC 220 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan bank clerk wrongly fired and falsely prosecuted won compensation, because his employer gave no reasons or hearing and police failed to investigate.
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 Claimant's employment was wrongful and unfair both procedurally and substantively
- 2.Whether the Claimant was illegally arrested and detained
- 3.Whether the prosecution of the Claimant was malicious and whether the Respondents are liable for it
- 4.Whether the Claimant was defamed by the Daily Nation articles
- 5.What remedies, if any, the Claimant is entitled to
Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal of the Claimant was unfair
The termination was unfair and unjustified because the dismissal letter did not set out reasons and the Claimant was not accorded a fair hearing under the rules of natural justice or the CBA
The court found the letter terminating the Claimant's services did not set out reasons for the summary dismissal, making it impossible to place the dismissal within lawful grounds. There was also no indication the Claimant was accorded any fair hearing according to rules of natural justice or the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Respondent and the Claimant's union. The court therefore found the termination unfair and unjustified and awarded compensation of eight months' salary plus one month's salary in lieu of notice.
Whether the Claimant was maliciously prosecuted and illegally detained
The court found the Claimant was maliciously charged and detained by the police, but the 2nd Respondent, which only reported the matter, was not liable for the prosecution
The court found the Claimant, a Tick Back Clerk whose work was merely to check posted entries, was not the originator of the fraudulent documents and thus had committed no offence. Acquittal under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code followed because no evidence was adduced. The court held the police acted maliciously in charging him. However, applying Catherine Wanjiku Kariuki, the 2nd Respondent as complainant was not to blame for the police's decision to charge. Damages were split between the two Respondents accordingly.
Whether the 2nd Respondent was liable for the prosecution and detention despite having reported the suspected fraud
The 2nd Respondent was not liable for the prosecution because the police had a duty to independently investigate and reach their own conclusions
Relying on Catherine Wanjiku Kariuki vs Attorney General & Another, the court held that once a report is made to the police, the police must independently investigate and arrive at their own conclusions; the complainant's role thereafter is only that of a witness. The court therefore apportioned liability, holding the 2nd Respondent liable only for the unfair termination while the 1st Respondent bore liability for the malicious prosecution and detention.
Legal principles established
#- A complainant who merely reports suspected crime to the police bears no liability for the prosecution that follows, as the police must independently investigate and decide whether to charge
- A termination letter that does not set out reasons and is not preceded by a fair hearing renders the dismissal unfair and unjustified
- Where an accused is a mere checker of posted documents and not the originator of fraudulent documents, charging him without evidence amounts to malicious prosecution by the police
Court orders
#- 1.1 month salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 53,000/= to be paid by the 2nd Respondent
- 2.8 months' salary as compensation for unlawful termination (8 x 53,000 = Kshs. 424,000/=) to be paid by the 2nd Respondent
- 3.Special damages of Kshs. 200,000/= paid to the Claimant's counsel during the criminal hearing to be paid by the 1st Respondent
- 4.General damages of Kshs. 3,000,000/= for malicious prosecution and detention, mental and psychological anguish to be paid by the 1st Respondent
- 5.The 2nd Respondent to issue the Claimant with a certificate of service
- 6.The Respondents to bear costs of the suit with interest at Court rates from the date of judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Matter transferred from the High Court to the Employment and Labour Relations Court on 14th October 2015
Relief refused
#Claim for defamation
Struck out by the Court in a Ruling delivered on 1st April 2016 following a preliminary objection by the 1st Respondent
Reinstatement
Not granted; the court instead awarded compensation and a certificate of service
Damages for loss of future earnings as separately pleaded
Not awarded as a distinct head; general damages for malicious prosecution, detention and anguish awarded instead
Costs
The Respondents will bear costs of this suit and interest at Court rates with effect from the date of this judgement
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 agree with the Claimant that he was not only unfairly terminated/dismissed, but was also maliciously charged and detained. I therefore, find for the Claimant
Further, there is no indication that the Claimant was accorded any fair hearing according to rules of natural justice and according to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the 1 st Respondent and Claimant's union. In the circumstances, the termination of the Claimant was unfair and unjustified.
It was thus a case of poor investigation or no investigation for the police to charge him as they did. The act by the police was therefore malicious and indeed this subjected the Claimant to ridicule.
The 2nd Respondent is therefore not to blame for the action of the 1 st Respondent in charging the Claimant on false charges.
1. 1 month salary in lieu of notice = 53,000/=. 2. 8 months' salary as compensation for unlawful termination = 8 x 53,000/= = 424,000/= .
General damages for malicious prosecution and detention, mental and psychological anguish – 3 million.
5. The Claimant should also be issued with a certificate of service by 2 nd Respondent. 6. The Respondents will bear costs of this suit and interest at Court rates with effect from the date of this judgement.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the dismissal date as 8/8/2012, inconsistent with the pleaded and evidenced date of 2nd/8th August 2002
The judgment contradicts itself on whether reasons were assigned to the termination, first finding the letter did not set out reasons, then stating 'Given that there were reasons assigned to the termination'
The judgment refers to the 2nd Respondent interchangeably as '2nd Defendant' in parts of the record
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Daniel Mungai Karanja v Attorney General & another [2018] KEELRC 220 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment (originally a High Court suit transferred to the Employment and Labour Relations Court on 14th October 2015; Criminal Case No. 2214 of 2002 - Nairobi referenced). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/220/eng@2018-12-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.