Nyakundi v House of Leather t/a Levs Trading Company Limited (Cause 722 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 2167 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that firing an employee without a proper disciplinary hearing and proof of wrongdoing was unfair, awarding the worker Kshs 272,290.
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 contract was terminated by the Respondent fairly
- 2.whether he merits the prayers sought
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the summary dismissal
Termination was procedurally flawed: no show-cause letter, no investigation, no disciplinary hearing, and the Director's interrogation did not satisfy Section 41 of the Employment Act.
The only process preceding dismissal was an interrogation led by the Director, whose alleged deception of him was itself a ground of dismissal. There was no record of a show-cause letter or investigation, no specified charges, no independent disciplinary panel, and no advisement of the right to be accompanied by a colleague or union representative. Even after the alleged absconding, the Respondent made no effort to convene a hearing despite knowing how to reach the Claimant through his brothers.
Substantive justification for termination
No valid reason was established; the theft, lying and absconding allegations were unproved, and the delivery note named the driver, not the Claimant.
The delivery note was in the name of driver Moses Ng'ang'a, who was not called to link the Claimant to any mischief. The alleged confession to the Managing Director was not documented and the Managing Director did not testify. The pleaded grounds were generic accusations incapable of constituting valid reasons. Termination therefore fell short of the standards under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Whether the Claimant absconded or was told to stay away
The Court preferred the Claimant's version that he was advised to stay away pending communication, and rejected the absconding narrative as implausible.
After an interrogation, it was implausible that the Respondent expected the Claimant to report to work 'as usual' the following day; he would have been awaiting the Director's findings. If he had genuinely absconded, the Respondent, which knew his brothers were its employees, could still have reached him for a disciplinary hearing.
Withholding of November 2015 salary
Withholding was unjustified since no theft by the Claimant was proved; the salary had to be paid.
The Respondent pleaded that the salary was withheld to recover the cost of 48 flowers allegedly stolen by the Claimant, but the Court found no evidence of theft. Reliance on Section 19(1) of the Employment Act to justify the withholding was therefore unsustainable.
Legal principles established
#- An interrogation by a Director is not a disciplinary hearing; procedural fairness under Section 41 of the Employment Act requires a properly convened disciplinary forum with specified charges and the right to be accompanied.
- Omnibus or generic accusations such as indiscipline, dishonesty, negligence, recklessness and breach of conduct cannot constitute valid reasons for termination.
Court orders
#- 1.It is declared that termination of the Claimant's contract by the Respondent was unfair and unlawful.
- 2.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant equivalent of 12 months' salary in compensation for unfair termination at Kshs 233,220; notice at Kshs 19,435; and salary for the month of November 2015 at Kshs 19,435 – total Kshs 272,290.
- 3.Costs to the Claimant.
- 4.Interest granted at court rates, from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Sections 41, 43, 45 and 19(1) applied)
Relief refused
#Payment of superior and favourable pension service at Kshs 106,893
No clarity and no evidence supporting the prayer; it was not established what the pension would be superior to or under which law.
Annual leave of 11 years at Kshs 172,673 (with an unspecified item of Kshs 171,426/429)
The prayer was unclear and unsupported by evidence.
12 months' salary in lieu of notice at Kshs 233,220
No foundation in law and fact; only one month's notice pay awarded.
Costs
Costs to the Claimant.
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.
Termination of the Claimant's contract was procedurally flawed, and substantively unsound. It fell far short of the minimum standards of fairness, under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
He was not called to a properly convened disciplinary forum, and advised about his right to attend in the company of a colleague or trade union representative.
Such generic accusations cannot pass for valid reasons. The Respondent needed to charge the Claimant specifically, and give him the opportunity to defend himself.
The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant equivalent of 12 months' salary in compensation for unfair termination at Kshs 233,220; notice at Kshs 19,435; and salary for the month of November 2015 at Kshs 19,435 – total Kshs 272,290.
Issues in the judgment
#The annual leave prayer contains a conflicting unspecified figure - pleaded at Kshs 171,426 in the prayer but referred to as Kshs 171,429 in the analysis.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyakundi v House of Leather t/a Levs Trading Company Limited (Cause 722 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 2167 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2167/eng@2024-08-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.