H. Young & Co. [E. A] Limited v Masika (Appeal E009 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 1368 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer's rushed, vague disciplinary process made a dismissal unfair, and the appeal court upheld every award against it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether termination of the Respondent's employment was unfair
- 2.whether the reliefs granted by the trial Court were deserved
Key legal issues
#Whether termination of the Respondent's employment was unfair
Termination was both substantively and procedurally unfair
The show cause letter was general, lacking specific allegations, gave the Respondent only one day to respond, and required him to travel about 100KM to a hearing communicated on the same day, without a fellow employee or union official as required by Section 41. The employer also failed to prove a valid reason for termination under Section 43(1). The entire process took only four days, showing the employer did not act in accordance with justice and equity.
Whether the award of 12 months' salary as compensation was deserved
Upheld, taking into account the manner and circumstances of termination
Given the extremely unfair procedure — one day's notice, a 100KM journey to a hastily convened hearing, and absence of Section 41 rights — the Court found the trial Court's award of the equivalent of 12 months' salary justified and upheld it.
Whether the award for untaken leave days was deserved
Upheld
The Appellant's alleged leave statement was an unauthenticated computer-generated sheet that did not accord with Section 74(g) of the Employment Act. No evidence showed when leave was applied for or how many days were outstanding at termination, so the Court declined to attach evidential value to it and upheld the award of Kshs. 76,704.
Whether the award of payment in lieu of notice was deserved
Upheld
It was not demonstrated that the Respondent was given a termination notice pursuant to Section 35(1)(c) of the Employment Act, so the award of Kshs. 36,526 in lieu of notice was upheld, as was the award of costs to the Respondent in the lower Court suit.
Legal principles established
#- Allegations made in warning letters cannot be the basis of future disciplinary actions, though they can inform the severity of a disciplinary action for future misconduct
- A show cause letter must set out specific and particular allegations, and an employer must prove valid reason and fair procedure under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- 2.The trial Court's finding that termination was substantively and procedurally unfair is upheld
- 3.The award of 12 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination is upheld
- 4.The award of Kshs. 76,704 for untaken leave is upheld
- 5.The award of Kshs. 36,526 in lieu of notice is upheld
- 6.The award of costs to the Respondent in the lower Court suit is upheld
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Malindi Chief Magistrate's Court
- ELR Case No. 99 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the Malindi Chief Magistrate's Court in an employment and labour relations matter
Relief refused
#Appellant's prayer that the appeal be allowed and the trial judgment and decree be set aside and the Respondent's claim dismissed with costs
The Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the trial Court's judgment and awards in their entirety
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent; costs awarded to the Respondent in the lower Court suit also upheld
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.
I find and hold that termination of the Respondent's employment by the Appellant was substantively and procedurally unfair, and I so declare, and uphold the trial Court's finding in that regard.
In sum, I find no merit in the Appellant's appeal, and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Allegations made in warning letters cannot be the basis of future disciplinary actions, though they can inform the severity of a disciplinary action to be taken by an employer in the event of future misconduct on the part of the employee concerned.
The Respondent is not shown to have been given reasonable time to respond to the show cause letter and prepare for the disciplinary hearing.
Issues in the judgment
#The compensation award computes Kshs. 36,52X12 = 438,312 with an apparent typographical error ('36,52X12'), and DW-1 testified the gross salary was Kshs. 36,000 while the claim pleaded Kshs. 50,281
The show cause letter quoted in the judgment is dated 25/7/2019 and refers to warning letters 'dated 15th April 2019 and 2nd May 2019', but the Respondent pleaded warning letters back-dated 2/4/2019 and 2/5/2019, and the Appellant's list of documents refers to 'letters dated 15/4/2019 and 2/5/2019'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "H. Young & Co. [E. A] Limited v Masika (Appeal E009 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 1368 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELR Appeal from Malindi CMCC ELR Case No. 99 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1368/eng@2024-06-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.