Mutula v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E883 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 555 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld KRA's dismissal of an employee for repeated absence without permission, confirming employers win when they follow proper procedure.
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 a fair and valid reason to terminate the employment of the Claimant
- 2.Was the Claimant accorded procedural fairness prior to being terminated from employment?
- 3.Is the Claimant entitled to the reliefs sought?
Key legal issues
#Whether there was a valid and fair reason for termination
Yes - a pattern of absence without permission or lawful cause, established through email correspondence and admitted absences, satisfied Section 43 on a balance of probability
The court relied on the Claimant's own letters and emails admitting absence for family issues and illness without medical certification, plus warnings from supervisors, to find a pattern of absenteeism without lawful authority. It held the employer did not need to prove the exact 48 days, only reasons genuinely believed to exist, and that absence without leave is a summary dismissal ground under Section 44(4)(a).
Whether the procedure under Section 41 was complied with
Yes - show cause letter, response, disciplinary hearing with right to accompaniment and to present evidence satisfied the four elements in Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui
The Claimant was notified of the allegations by a show cause letter, responded in writing, was invited to a hearing on 25th August 2021 with the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee and to bring documents, and was heard. There was no evidence that he requested the attendance data and it was withheld from him.
Entitlement to the reliefs sought
None - having found the termination fair, all reliefs fail
All the reliefs, including reinstatement, compensation, notice pay, discrimination compensation and leave pay, were premised on a finding of unfair termination. That premise having failed, the reliefs could not be sustained.
Legal principles established
#- In termination disputes the employer need only prove on a balance of probability the reasons it genuinely believed to exist
- Absence from work without leave or lawful authority is a ground for summary dismissal and affords a valid reason for termination
- An employee is only entitled to sick leave with full pay upon notifying the employer and furnishing a medical certificate
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Claim in its entirety
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
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 over a claim of unfair termination
Relief refused
#Declaration that dismissal was unfair, unlawful, null and void
Court found termination neither unfair nor unlawful
Reinstatement or re-engagement with no loss of benefits
Fell with the finding of fair termination
Salary in lieu of notice (Kshs 585,000) and 12 months' compensation (Kshs 2,340,000), withheld salary, discrimination compensation, leave pay, pension and interest
All reliefs could not be sustained once termination was held fair
Costs
Each party to bear its 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.
In the final analysis, I dismiss the Claim in its entirety with an order that each party bears its own costs.
the standard of proof required is on a balance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt, and all the employer is required to prove are the reasons that it “genuinely believed to exist,”
the mere fact that the Claimant was absent from work with no leave or lawful authority, availed the Respondent a fair and valid reason to terminate his employment.
the Claimant was accorded procedural fairness as he was informed of the allegations levelled against him and given an opportunity to be heard on his explanation to the allegations.
The number of days he was away without permission does not count, rather it is whether he had oficial permission to be away.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in dates of absence - the Claimant's letter admits absence from 22nd to 26th February 2021, but the judgment records his admission as covering 21st to 26th February 2021
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutula v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E883 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 555 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment as extracted. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/555/eng@2024-03-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.