Kenya Chemical Workers Union v Vee Plastics Limited (Cause E813 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3178 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer who fired a machine operator by verbal order, with no hearing or warning, was ordered to pay over Kshs 321,000 for unfair termination.
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 grievant's employment was with a valid and fair reason (substantive fairness)
- 2.Whether the termination followed fair procedure under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
- 3.What remedies the grievant is entitled to
Key legal issues
#Substantive and procedural fairness of the termination
The dismissal was unfair both substantively and procedurally as no valid and fair reason was established and no notice, warning, show-cause or hearing was given
The court found that the Director verbally ordered the grievant out of the premises after a machine breakdown, blamed him for the burnt motor, demanded he pay Kshs 60,000/= for a replacement and, on his explanation that the motor was old and had burnt before, dismissed him without listening. No notice, warning or reasons for termination were given, and no disciplinary process was initiated, contrary to sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Remedies for unfair termination
Notice pay, salary for July 2020, unpaid annual leave for three years, service pay for three years, certificate of service and compensation of 10 months' salary were awarded
Because the termination was substantially unjustified and procedurally flawed, notice pay was allowed. Uncontested heads (July 2020 salary, three years' unpaid leave, service pay) were allowed as unrebutted. Compensation was fixed at 10 months' salary considering eight years of service and the Respondent's refusal to attend conciliation or court proceedings.
Legal principles established
#- Termination of employment without notice, warning or reasons, and without affording the employee a hearing, is neither substantively nor procedurally justified under the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration implicit in the finding that the dismissal of the grievant's employment was not substantially justified
- 2.One month notice pay of Kshs 19,838/=
- 3.July 2020 salary of Kshs 19,838/=
- 4.3 years annual leave pay of Kshs 48,831/=
- 5.Service pay for three years of Kshs 34,445/=
- 6.10 months' compensation for unfair and unlawful termination of Kshs 198,380/=
- 7.Total award of Kshs 321,222/=
- 8.Certificate of service to the grievant under section 51 of the Employment Act
- 9.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Labour Institutions Act over the unfair termination dispute reported to the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Labour
Relief refused
#Compensation computed at the maximum 12 months' salary as claimed
The court awarded 10 months' salary instead of the maximum, taking into account years of service and the Respondent's conduct
Costs
Costs awarded to the Claimant
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 conclusion I find that the dismissal of grievant Employment was not substantially justified for there being no valid and fair reason for termination.
The prayer for one-month salary in lieu of Notice would be allowed since the reason for the termination of the grievant employment has been found to be substantially unjustified and procedurally fiawed.
The grievant is entitled to certificate of service as envisaged by Section 51 of the Employment Act.
In conclusion the Claimants’ claim should be allowed as illustrated below with costs to the Claimant.
Issues in the judgment
#The claimant union is referred to only as 'The Claimant a labour organization'; its full name is never stated in the judgment, nor is the Respondent company's name or the case number
The judgment contains drafting inconsistencies/typographical errors, e.g. unrevised text and misspellings
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Chemical Workers Union v Vee Plastics Limited (Cause E813 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3178 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3178/eng@2023-12-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.