Owuor v Practical Action (Cause E824 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 1647 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 procedure to release the Claimant was adhered to
- 2.Whether there were substantive grounds for termination
- 3.Whether the Claimant committed acts of misconduct that warranted him to be subjected to a disciplinary process
- 4.Whether the Claimant was subjected to a disciplinary hearing that was done in accordance to the law
- 5.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Statement of Claim
Key legal issues
#Whether the employer proved valid grounds for termination under section 43(1) of the Employment Act
The Respondent failed to discharge its burden; the evidence did not clearly connect the Claimant to the allegations and did not warrant dismissal
Section 43(1) requires the employer to prove the reason for termination. The Respondent genuinely believed the complainant's version but failed to demonstrate why it disregarded the testimony of others. The Claimant was only furnished a summary of 5 of 9 witnesses, and evidence in the Respondent's possession was unable to connect him to the misconduct. Genuine belief without proof is insufficient.
Whether the Claimant was accorded procedural fairness
The Respondent made efforts to ensure a fair hearing, including allowing an appeal and a fresh hearing, but failed to avail adequate proof
The Respondent placed the Claimant on administrative leave, invited him to a disciplinary hearing, allowed his appeal and reinstated him for a fresh hearing where he could tender his defence and call a witness. However, the Claimant was not furnished with the full statements, and the Court noted opaqueness in the process. The failure was primarily evidential rather than procedural.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to salary for the remainder of the contract
He was not; employees do not automatically obtain payment for the balance of a contract
The Claimant received his terminal dues and Certificate of Service, was not rendering services to the Respondent, and his contract did not provide for continued salary payments regardless of termination. Sufficient basis for such an award was absent.
Legal principles established
#- Even where an employer genuinely believes certain facts to exist, some degree of proof is required; mere allegations cannot justify dismissal
- Employees do not automatically obtain payment of sums due on the balance of the contract after termination
Court orders
#- 1.Kshs. 493,293/-
- 2.Costs of the suit based on the sum above
- 3.Interest at court rates on the sum in (a) above from the date of judgment till payment in full
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Employment Act over a claim of wrongful and unfair termination of employment
Relief refused
#Declaration that the termination of the Claimant's services was unlawful and unfair (claim succeeded in part, not as sought)
The court found the dismissal unlawful but awarded only compensation rather than the reliefs claimed
Order to have the Respondent expunge all records of sexual assault, defamation and all other allegations
Not granted in the final orders
Kshs. 1,973,172/- being salary for the remainder of the contract
The Claimant was not rendering services and the contract did not provide for continued salary payments
General damages
Not granted; only 3 months' salary as compensation under section 49
Costs
Costs of the suit based on the sum of Kshs. 493,293/- awarded; interest at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
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 enter judgment for the Claimant against the Respondent for:a. Kshs. 493,293/-. b. Costs of the suit based on the sum above. c. Interest at court rates on the sum in (a) above from the date of judgment till payment in full. It is so ordered.
Even where the employer genuinely believes certain facts to exist, some degree of proof is required.
The evidence the Respondent had in its possession was unable to clearly connect the Claimant to the allegations of misconduct and in my considered view did not warrant a dismissal.
the burden of proving that an unfair termination of employment or wrongful dismissal has occurred shall rest on the employee. In this case it is clear the Claimant has discharged this and the Respondent failed to discharge its burden under section 47(5) of justifying the grounds for the termination of employment.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the parties are not printed in the judgment text; the matter is referred to only as 'The Claimant' and 'The Respondent'.
The case number/cause number of this suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment text.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Owuor v Practical Action (Cause E824 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 1647 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1647/eng@2024-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.