Peter Njuguna Chege v Timsales Limited [2020] KEELRC 1054 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a retirement notice cannot be used to escape discipline for striking, and dismissed the employee's benefits claim entirely.
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 employment was in violation of the constitution and the law
- 2.Whether the claimant should be paid his retirement benefits
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of employment violated the constitution and the law
No violation; the claimant authored his own termination
The claimant last attended work on 25 July 2018 during an unprotected strike, a finding already made by the court in Nairobi Cause No.1282 of 2018. He declined to respond to the notice to show cause and skipped two disciplinary hearings despite invitations. By refusing to attend and show cause, he placed himself up for summary dismissal and squandered the chance for a hearing. His retirement notice issued after the Nairobi ruling was an afterthought that could not sanitise gross misconduct.
Whether the claimant should be paid retirement benefits (gratuity, leave)
Refused; the claimant cannot benefit from his own gross misconduct
The claimant sought gratuity of 21 days per completed year and leave pay under the CBA. The court found he authored his own termination by absconding during an unprotected strike and refusing the disciplinary process, which the Nairobi ruling had directed him to undergo. Allowing the retirement notice to stand would sanction and reward misconduct. Only a Certificate of Service under section 51 and an administrative NSSF letter were directed.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who squanders the internal grievance handling mechanisms provided for by the employer cannot claim to have been unfairly treated
- A retirement notice cannot be used to sanitise gross misconduct
- It is not the role of the Court to supervise internal grievance handling processes between employers and employees
Court orders
#- 1.The claims made are found without merit and are dismissed
- 2.The respondent is awarded costs
- 3.A Certificate of Service should issue in accordance with section 51 of the Employment Act, 2007
- 4.Where the claimant requires a letter to the NSSF to access his work benefits, a request to the respondent ought to issue and be addressed administratively
- 5.Judgment delivered electronically via e-mail in line with COVID-19 directions
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 and the Constitution (article 23(3)(e) invoked in the relief sought)
Relief refused
#Ksh.515,805 retirement benefits/gratuity
The claimant authored his own termination by absconding and refusing the disciplinary process; the retirement notice cannot sanitise gross misconduct
Compensation in terms of article 23(3)(e) of the Constitution
No violation of the constitution or any right under the Employment Act was established
Deemed retirement and related declarations
Claims dismissed as without merit
Costs
The respondent is awarded costs
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.
Accordingly, the claims made are found without merit and are hereby dismissed. The respondent is awarded costs.
the claimant's retirement notice cannot issue to sanitise gross misconduct. to allow the retirement notice to stand would be to sanction misconduct and proceed to reward it.
An employee who squanders the internal grievance handling mechanisms provided by an employer cannot come to Court and say ''I refused to talk with those people and therefore I was not heard, order them to pay me.''
He squandered the chance for a hearing.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent dates for delivery of the retirement notice
Internal inconsistency in dates: earlier narrative states show cause notice dated 1st July, 2019 while later paragraphs state 1st August, 2018
Disciplinary hearing dates appear inconsistently as 10th/11th July, 2019
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter Njuguna Chege v Timsales Limited [2020] KEELRC 1054 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No. 58 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1054/eng@2020-04-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.