Amos Otieno Owando v Eurocraft Agencies Limited [2022] KEELRC 924 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that even serious misconduct suspicions cannot justify firing a worker without first giving them a hearing.
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 respondent had justifiable reasons to terminate the employment of the claimant
- 2.Whether the claimant was entitled to procedural fairness
- 3.Is the claimant entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent had justifiable reasons to terminate the claimant's employment
Yes - the reasons were valid and fair
The dismissal was grounded on section 44(4)(g), suspicion of a criminal offence against the employer. Applying Kenya Revenue Authority v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi, the standard is balance of probability and the employer need only show it genuinely believed the reasons existed. Eye-witness statements and the confiscation of the claimant's airport pass gave the employer reasonable and sufficient grounds. Trust and honesty were essential to the claimant's role as a loader handling customers' belongings.
Whether the claimant was entitled to procedural fairness
No hearing was accorded; the dismissal was unlawful and unprocedural
Section 41(2) of the Employment Act is mandatory: an employer must hear and consider representations before summary dismissal. The respondent admitted no hearing took place and argued the claimant's confiscated access permit made one impossible. The court rejected this, holding a visitor's pass could have facilitated a hearing. The dismissal therefore fell outside legal parameters.
Entitlement to reliefs
Notice pay and four months' compensation awarded; service pay declined
Following the finding of procedural unfairness, one month's notice pay was awarded under section 35(1)(c) and compensatory damages of four months' gross salary. The service pay claim failed because the claimant contributed to the NSSF, an exclusion under section 35(6)(d).
Legal principles established
#- An employer need only prove, on a balance of probability, that it genuinely believed the reasons for dismissal existed at the time, particularly where dismissal is based on suspicion of criminal conduct under section 44(4)(g)
- Section 41 of the Employment Act sets mandatory minimum procedural standards that cannot be waived by an employer electing summary dismissal under section 44
- Confiscation of an employee's airport access permit does not excuse the employer's failure to accord a hearing
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the claimant against the respondent in the sum of Kshs 13,317.00 being one month's salary in lieu of notice and Kshs 53,268.00 being compensation equivalent to 4 months' gross salary, totalling Kshs 66,585.00
- 2.The award to attract interest at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 3.The respondent to bear the costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution establishing the Employment and Labour Relations Court (implied from the court's jurisdiction over the employment claim; the judgment itself invokes Articles 159(2)(d) and 48 of the Constitution for the delivery mode)
Relief refused
#Service pay of Kshs 13,317
The claimant was contributing to the NSSF and thus fell within the exclusions under section 35(6)(d) of the Employment Act
Compensatory damages of 12 months' gross salary (Kshs 207,950.40)
The court awarded only 4 months' gross salary as compensation for the procedurally unfair dismissal
Costs
The respondent shall bear the costs of the suit.
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.
In the final analysis, I enter Judgment in favour of the claimant against the respondent in the following terms
One month’s salary in lieu of notice 13,317.00 Compensation equivalent to 4 months’ gross salary 53,268.00 Total 66,585.00
The respondent shall also bear the costs of the suit
It is therefore not optional for an employer to cherry-pick the statutory provisions and elect whether or not to comply with the provisions of section 41 of the Act
The award, shall attract interest at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
Issues in the judgment
#The letter of dismissal is quoted as invoking 'section 44 (g)' of the Employment Act, 2007, while the court analyses the ground under section 44(4)(g); the dismissal letter's citation is imprecise
The respondent's name is misprinted in the cause heading as 'RESPODENNT'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amos Otieno Owando v Eurocraft Agencies Limited [2022] KEELRC 924 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No 208 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/924/eng@2022-01-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.