Ngeno v AIC Litein Hospital (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E059 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2066 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan hospital was ordered to pay a former employee over Kshs 522,000 because it fired him without giving reasons or a fair hearing.
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 termination was fair and justified
- 2.If yes, whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was substantively and procedurally fair
The dismissal was unfair and unjustified: the termination letter gave no reasons, and the disciplinary process did not comply with section 41 of the Employment Act
The termination letter dated 26th October 2023 stated no reasons for termination, making it impossible to discern whether valid reasons existed. The disciplinary hearing minutes showed no witness was called to testify and no indication the Claimant was asked to give his evidence on the allegations. Section 45(2) requires both valid reasons and a fair hearing; the disciplinary process was flawed.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to remedies
Claimant awarded 6 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination and gratuity on the 2-year contract
Having found the dismissal unfair, the court awarded compensation equivalent to 6 months' salary given 12 months of the contract remained unspent, plus gratuity at 10% of basic salary over 24 months, less statutory deductions, with costs and interest.
Legal principles established
#- For a fair dismissal there must be both valid reasons and a fair hearing, and where the dismissal letter does not state reasons the court cannot discern validity of reasons
Court orders
#- 1.Award of 6 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination (Kshs 356,487.60), given 12 months of the contract remained unspent
- 2.Award of gratuity on the 2-year contract (Kshs 165,594.24)
- 3.Total award of Kshs 522,081.84 less statutory deductions
- 4.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of judgment
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 (sections 41, 43, 45, 47(5), 51 and 90 cited)
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination was null and void / damages as claimed of Kshs 1,395,170.59 (court awarded lesser amounts instead)
Court awarded 6 months' compensation and gratuity rather than the damages sum claimed
Certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act
Not addressed in the judgment's final orders
Respondent's counterclaim for Kshs 14,400 and a laptop valued at Kshs 45,000
Not specifically addressed in the judgment; no orders made on the counterclaim
Costs
The Respondent will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment
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 Respondent will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgment.
In the circumstances, I find the disciplinary process was fiawed. In terms of section 45 (2) of the Employment Act 2007 for there to be a fair dismissal, there must both be established the existence of valid reasons and a fair hearing.
The letter above never gave reasons for the termination.
In the circumstances of these case, I therefore find that the Claimant’s dismissal was unfair and unjustified.
Issues in the judgment
#Arithmetic error in compensation computation: 6 x 68,997.60 does not equal 356,487.60 (it equals 413,985.60), and the salary figure varies between 68,997.60, 85,997.60 and 68,097.60 in adjacent paragraphs
The Respondent's counterclaim (Kshs 14,400 and laptop worth Kshs 45,000) is not addressed in the judgment or the final orders
Contradiction on date of show cause response: judgment records response dated 22/8/2023 while paragraph 13 records 18th August, 2023 and submissions record 8th August, 2023
The court states the section 41 procedure was followed but immediately finds it was flawed
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngeno v AIC Litein Hospital (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E059 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2066 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 30th November, 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2066/eng@2024-07-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.