KJDL v Daystar University (Cause 1850 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 4123 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a dishonest medical form dismissal but ordered the employer to pay notice, leave and half-salary dues, ruling the backdated termination unlawful.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was unfair termination of employment
- 2.Whether the reliefs sought should issue
- 3.Who should pay costs
Key legal issues
#Whether termination was for valid and justifiable reasons
Yes. The claimant falsely listed his sister as spouse on the medical cover form despite declaring its truthfulness; sanctions were legitimate under Section 43
The claimant admitted listing his sister MM as spouse in the medical declaration form dated 24th August 2016 in which he declared the contents true. The disciplinary committee found the misconduct proved, and the employer genuinely believed the reasons for termination existed, satisfying Section 43(2) of the Employment Act. The claimant's declining of sanctions led to frustration of his own employment.
Whether due process under Section 41 was followed
Yes; the claimant was suspended, heard by a disciplinary committee, and given written and oral representations
Section 41 of the Employment Act requires an employee be allowed to defend himself. The claimant was suspended on 18th January 2017, appeared before the disciplinary committee on 2nd March 2017, made representations, and received sanctions. He contested and declined them; the process itself complied with the law.
Whether the backdated termination date and half pay during suspension were lawful
Backdating was an unfair labour practice; half salary remained due until actual termination on 24th May 2017
Although the termination letter purported to take effect from 29th March 2017, employment in fact terminated on 24th May 2017 when the letter was issued. The backdating sanction was an unfair labour practice. The claimant was on half salary during suspension; the balance of Ksh.66,028 per month is due and to be credited in final tabulation.
Whether Sacco loan could be offset from terminal dues
Yes; a Sacco loan secured through salary is a lawful deduction at source under Sections 17 and 19 of the Employment Act
The claimant had a loan with Biblia Sacco offset from salary. Under Sections 17 and 19 of the Employment Act the employer may deduct and remit amounts owed to third parties pursuant to agreements made during employment. Precedent confirms employees who join Saccos by virtue of employment are estopped from claiming such dues from the employer upon termination.
Legal principles established
#- An employer who genuinely believes reasons exist to justify termination acts lawfully under Section 43 of the Employment Act
- An employer may lawfully deduct Sacco loan repayments at source from terminal dues
- Backdating a termination date is an unfair labour practice
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the claimant for notice pay of Ksh.588,558
- 2.Leave pay of Ksh.63,028
- 3.Unpaid half salaries from 29th March to 24th May, 2017
- 4.Dues (a), (b) and (c) shall be paid if not already paid and subject to the provisions of Section 49(2) of the Employment Act, 2007
- 5.Dues owing shall be paid less what the claimant owes to Biblia Sacco
- 6.Each party shall bear own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment Act, 2007 (Sections 41, 43, 49(2), 17 and 19); first-instance labour claim
Relief refused
#Compensation for loss of earning of Ksh.2,354,232
The court found the termination justified; the claimant's own conduct frustrated the employment
Certificate of service (not expressly addressed in the orders)
Not included in the final orders
Costs
Each party shall bear own 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.
The court finds the respondent had valid and justifiable reasons to terminate employment. the claimant was taken through the due process and his decision to decline the sanction issued of a demotion and a warning led to frustration of his own employment.
Employment terminated on 24th May, 2017 and not 29th March, 2017. The sanction to backdate the termination date is an unfair labour practice.
such loan due to a Sacco by virtue of employment and secured through a salary is a lawful deduction at source by the employer
Judgement is hereby entered for the claimant for payment of the following dues
Each party shall bear own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Salary figure inconsistently stated in claim (Ksh.579,558 for notice pay) versus court's computation (Ksh.588,558 based on Ksh.196,186), and paragraph 2 states Ksh.193,186
Date of outcome letter inconsistently stated as 14th April, 2017 and 19th April, 2017
Paragraph numbering skips from 30 to 32; no paragraph 31
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "KJDL v Daystar University (Cause 1850 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 4123 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/4123/eng@2022-04-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.