Korir v Boresha Sacco Society Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E055 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1606 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a SACCO branch manager's dismissal for failing to supervise operations, awarding him only payment for unused leave days.
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 Claimant's dismissal was fair and justified
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Whether there were valid grounds for the Claimant's dismissal
Yes - the Claimant failed in his duties as branch manager, losing touch with branch operations and over-delegating, causing loss of members' funds
The court found the Claimant headed branch operations, was responsible for ensuring reconciliations and oversight of staff, and stayed aloof while cash was lost. Investigation reports and disciplinary minutes supported the reasons. His plea that he was not an accountant did not relieve him of his managerial supervisory duty, so the employer proved a valid reason under section 45(2).
Whether fair procedure under section 41 was followed
Yes - the Claimant was given notice to show cause, responded, attended disciplinary hearings on 15/11/2021 and 29/12/2021, and an appeal was considered
The court noted the Claimant was suspended with a notice to show cause, responded in writing, was heard by the disciplinary committee on two occasions, and minutes of the hearings were produced. Although new allegations of lost motorbikes and phones surfaced during the hearing, the court accepted the process met the section 41 threshold.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Only payment for unused leave days of Kshs 318,904; all other reliefs refused
Having found the dismissal fair and justified, the court held the Claimant was not entitled to notice pay, compensatory damages or unpaid salary claims. However, the court found the Claimant proved his claim for unused leave days for 2021-2023 (about 100 days) and awarded Kshs 318,904 under that head.
Legal principles established
#- A termination of employment is unfair if the employer fails to prove a valid and fair reason and fair procedure under section 45(2) of the Employment Act
- A branch manager has a supervisory duty over all branch operations and cannot escape liability by pleading that he was not an accountant
Court orders
#- 1.Award to the Claimant of Kshs 318,904 for unused leave days
- 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 over unfair termination claims under the Employment Act, 2007
Relief refused
#One month salary in lieu of notice (Kshs 143,500)
Dismissal was found fair and justified, being a summary dismissal for valid cause
Twelve months' compensatory damages (Kshs 1,722,000)
Termination was substantively and procedurally fair; compensation under section 49 not available
Unpaid half salary August 2021 - April 2022 (Kshs 645,750)
Not awarded as remedies were refused
Unpaid salary May - September 2022 (Kshs 574,000)
Not awarded; the relationship having ended with the fair dismissal
Costs
Each party will 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.
From the evidences on record, the Claimant indeed failed in his duties as branch manager. There were therefore valid reasons for his dismissal.
I find that he was also subjected to a fair disciplinary process as envisaged under Section 41 of the Employment Act 2007.
It is my finding that the Claimant was fairly and justifiably dismissed as per section 45 (2) of the Employment Act 2007
the Claimant is not entitled to the remedies he has sought save for his unused leave days, which I find for him and award at Kshs 318,904/=. Each party will bear its own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Contradictory dates for the dismissal letter: paragraph 70 states 10/6/2023 while paragraphs 11, 21 and 83 state 16/6/2022
Inconsistent figures for the total loss attributed to the Claimant across pleadings and submissions (Kshs 13,982,208; Kshs 13,851,990; Kshs 13,921,240; Kshs 12,814,635)
Gross monthly salary stated inconsistently (Kshs 119,000 at appointment said to be 'raised to Kshs 143,500' yet contract dated 2017 refers to 143,500 in reliefs)
Date of Claimant's letter to Respondent appears as 21/20/2021, an impossible date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Korir v Boresha Sacco Society Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E055 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1606 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Memorandum of Claim dated 23rd October, 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1606/eng@2024-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.