Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 161 of 2015· [2020] KEELRC 1423 (KLR)

James Eoi Lopariiku v Marula Estates Limited [2020] KEELRC 1423 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
20 February 2020
MMM. Mbaru
1,269 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan farm worker who refused a warning letter and stopped showing up lost his unfair dismissal case because courts treat walking away as ending your own job.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, a herder, sued Marula Estates Limited alleging unfair termination of employment. He sought a finding of unfair termination, reinstatement and/or terminal dues with compensation of Ksh.67,284, three months' notice pay of Ksh.16,821, and payment for untaken leave accumulated over 15 years at Ksh.168,210. He testified that he was illiterate, could not understand documents issued to him, and was dismissed after refusing to sign a warning over a cow allegedly lost or drowned, which he maintained was untrue since his whole herd was accounted for. The respondent's defence was that the claimant was never dismissed but absconded duty after being served with a warning letter on 19th September 2013 for gross misconduct - being unable to account for a cow while drunk - and never returned. The respondent's witnesses (the house allocator, the foreman Francis Kimunge, and livestock manager Joshua Loshorua) testified to the claimant's repeated intoxication on duty, insubordination, and refusal to accept the warning. The court held that under section 44(4) of the Employment Act, 2007 an employer may summarily dismiss an employee who refuses lawful instructions, and that an employee disputing a warning should challenge it on appeal rather than walk away; by refusing the warning and abandoning duty, the claimant frustrated his own employment, which could not be visited on the employer. Reinstatement was unavailable given the lapse of time beyond section 12 of the ELRC Act read with section 49(4) of the Employment Act. Notice pay was not due where summary dismissal was warranted. The leave claim failed on the evidence of pro-rated leave payment and the 12-month limitation in section 90. The entire claim was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs. Judgment was delivered at Nakuru on 20th February 2020 by M. Mbaru, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether termination was unfair

Holding

Not unfair; the claimant frustrated his own employment by refusing to accept a warning and abandoning duty

Reasoning

The court found the claimant was issued a warning over a lost cow but refused to accept or sign it, walking away and never returning to work. Section 44(4) allows summary dismissal for refusal of lawful instructions; an employee who disputes a warning should appeal it rather than abandon employment. The claimant's own conduct, not the employer's, ended the relationship.

p. 2
02

Reinstatement

Holding

Not available

Reasoning

Beyond the merits, section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 read with section 49(4) of the Employment Act, 2007 limits the period within which reinstatement can be ordered; the lapse from September 2013 to judgment exceeded that period.

p. 2
03

Notice pay

Holding

Not due

Reasoning

Where summary dismissal is warranted and the employee refused a warning and walked away, notice pay does not arise. The court treated the separation as self-inflicted rather than a termination obliging notice.

p. 2
04

Annual leave for 15 years

Holding

Not payable

Reasoning

Employment on the evidence subsisted only from about 2007 to 2013 (under 6 years), the last payment statement showed pro-rated leave payment which was not challenged, and any continuing injury claim was caught by the 12-month limitation under section 90 of the Employment Act.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee notified of gross misconduct and sanctioned with a warning must accept the warning and challenge it if untrue, not walk away from employment
  • Section 44(4) of the Employment Act permits summary dismissal of an employee who refuses lawful instructions
  • Untaken leave is a continuing injury subject to the 12-month limitation in section 90 of the Employment Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claims made are found without merit and are dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall bear own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 (section 12) read with the Employment Act, 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "James Eoi Lopariiku v Marula Estates Limited [2020] KEELRC 1423 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No. 161 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1423/eng@2020-02-20

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