Nzangi v Mars Wrigley Confectionery Kenya Limited (Cause 1 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1923 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that firing a worker for being injured and claiming compensation is unfair, awarding him eight months' salary.
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 leading to the claimant's termination was fair
- 2.Whether the reason for termination was valid and fair
- 3.Whether the claimant violated the respondent's LOTO safety measures
- 4.Whether the claimant was discriminated against
- 5.What remedies are due under section 49 of the Employment Act
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of termination
Procedure was fair as the claimant received a show cause letter, responded, and was heard at a disciplinary meeting
The claimant received a show cause letter dated 08.07.2022, responded on 11.07.2022 and was heard at the disciplinary meeting on 21.07.2022. Due process of notice and hearing was thus accorded, satisfying section 45(2) procedural requirements.
Validity of the reason for termination
Reason invalid; the claimant did not violate safety procedures as he had obtained a signed LOTO exception permit
The claimant obtained a duly signed exception permit for unblocking the hopper; the permit attached to the activity rather than machine parts. His unrebuted evidence was that troubleshooting required the machine energized. The actual cause of injury was slipping, an inherent risk, not safety violation.
Discrimination
Finding that the real reason for termination was injury and compensation seeking, corroborated by the other two employees being retained
RW confirmed the two colleagues who worked with the claimant were not dismissed. RW's own testimony that the team 'did what they were supposed to do' undermined the allegation of disobedience, supporting the claimant's case of discriminatory treatment after injury.
Quantum of compensation under section 49
8 months' gross salary awarded at Kshs.216,062.40 per month, totaling Kshs.1,728,499.20 less PAYE
The court considered the section 49 factors, noting the claimant performed his duty as assigned and the injury arose from inherent risks. Compensation of 8 months was appropriate in all circumstances, and the certificate of service was to issue per section 51.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who obtains a duly signed LOTO exception permit covering the assigned task has complied with safety procedures and cannot be said to have disobeyed a lawful command
- Termination of an employee because he was injured and sought compensation under WIBA is not a valid reason under section 43 and is unfair under section 45
Court orders
#- 1.Payment of Kshs.1,728,499.20 less PAYE by 01.09.2024 failing interest at court rates from the date of judgment until full payment
- 2.The respondent to deliver the certificate of service by 15.08.2024
- 3.The respondent to pay costs of the suit
- 4.The Deputy Registrar to forthwith, within three days, return the file to the Machakos Sub-registry
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 claims where employee earns more than Kshs. 80,000 (matter transferred from Mavoko lower court)
Relief refused
#Damages for 12 months' salary (Kshs.2,593,944.00) as prayed
Court awarded 8 months' gross salary instead under section 49
General damages for unlawful dismissal, mental torture and anguish
Not granted; only statutory compensation under section 49 awarded
Reinstatement to employment in the same capacity
Deemed abandoned
Costs
The respondent to pay costs of the suit.
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.
The Court has considered all the circumstances and the claimant is awarded 8 months’ gross salary in compensation at Kshs.216,062.40 making Kshs.1,728,499.20 less payee. The certificate of service will issue. The claimant urged for compensation and the prayer for reinstatement is deemed abandoned.
Payment of Kshs.1,728,499.20 less PAYE by 01.09.2024 failing interest at court rates be payable thereon from the date of this judgment until full payment.
The reasons for the termination are found completely unjustified and unfair. They did not relate to the claimant’s misconduct, compatibility, or the respondent’s operational systems.
The Court finds that there is no established lawful command that the claimant disobeyed and, there is no shown work the claimant was required toi properly perform but failed to do so.
The Court considers that the claimant was accorded due process of a notice and disciplinary hearing and to that extent returns that the procedure leading to his termination was not unfair.
Issues in the judgment
#Date of judgment on signature block (26th July 2024) is earlier than delivery deadline order for certificate of service (15.08.2024) but payment order dated 01.09.2024 - internally consistent; however memorandum of claim dated 14.09.2024 postdates the case number ELRC Cause No. E051 of 2022
Claim date inconsistent: memorandum of claim dated 14.09.2024 yet suit initially filed in lower court in 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nzangi v Mars Wrigley Confectionery Kenya Limited (Cause 1 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1923 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELRC Cause formerly Mavoko ELRC Cause No. E051 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1923/eng@2024-07-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.