Tornado Carriers Limited v Okwomi (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E001 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2298 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenyan employers cannot fire a worker for 'absconding' without proving they tried to trace and hear the employee first.
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 trial court erred in finding that the respondent was summarily dismissed and discharged the burden of proof of unfair termination despite alleged absconding from duty
- 2.Whether the awards of notice pay, house allowance and 12 months' compensation were justified and proportionate
Key legal issues
#Whether summary dismissal for absconding was fair
Unfair termination was properly found; the appellant failed to show efforts to trace the respondent for a disciplinary hearing
Section 44(4)(a) permits termination for absence without permission, but Section 41(2) obliges the employer to hear the employee before summary dismissal. Section 18(5)(b) requires notice of termination, served on the Labour Officer where the employee cannot be traced. The appellant demonstrated no efforts to trace the respondent or invite him to a hearing, so the finding of unfair termination stood.
Whether the 12 months' compensation award was justified
Reduced to 6 months (Ksh.120,000) considering length of service and poor work record
Maximum compensation under Section 49 of the Employment Act requires the court to give reasons and identify exceptional circumstances. With 6 years' service and a poor work record under Section 45(5), 6 months' compensation was appropriate on a monthly wage of Ksh.20,000.
Whether the house allowance award was justified
Reduced to Ksh.3,000 x 78 months = Ksh.234,000; employer bore duty to produce records
Under Sections 10(6) and (7) of the Employment Act the employer bears the legal duty to submit work records. The appellant filed no records showing how house allowance was allocated within the Ksh.20,000 wage, so a 15% house allowance on the basic wage was computed for 78 months.
Legal principles established
#- An employer cannot justify termination by simply alleging that the employee absconded duty; the employer must issue notice inviting the employee to a disciplinary hearing and, where the employee cannot be traced, serve notice on the Labour Officer
- An allegation that an employee absconded duty obliges the employer to demonstrate efforts to contact the employee
- An award of the maximum 12 months' compensation must be justified with reasons and exceptional circumstances
Court orders
#- 1.Compensation Ksh.120,000 (reduced from 12 to 6 months)
- 2.Notice pay Ksh.20,000 (reduced from Ksh.23,039.45)
- 3.House allowance Ksh.234,000 (reduced from Ksh.269,561)
- 4.For the appeal, each party bears its costs
- 5.For the trial court, costs as awarded
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Mombasa CMELRC
- E668 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the Employment and Labour Relations Court (subordinate court) - re-evaluation of the record as a first appeal
Relief refused
#Maximum 12 months' compensation
Respondent had worked only 6 years and had a poor work record; maximum award requires reasons and exceptional circumstances
Costs
For the appeal, each party bears its costs; for the trial court, costs as awarded.
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.
Therefore, an employer cannot justify termination of employment by simply saying that the employee absconded duty.
The findings by the trial court that there was unfair termination of employment cannot be faulted.
Accordingly, on the above analysis, the judgment in Mombasa CMELRC E668 of 2021 is reviewed in the following terms;
Compensation Ksh.120,000; Notice pay Ksh.20,000; House allowance Ksh.234,000; For the appeal, each party bears its costs; For the trial court, costs as awarded.
Issues in the judgment
#Delivery date discrepancy: judgment states 'DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MOMBASA THIS 26 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024' while the opening refers to judgment of 6 December 2023 in the trial court; also the panel line uses a diacritic 'M. MBARŨ'
At paragraph 27 the appellant is described as being on a gross wage, though the appellant is the employer
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tornado Carriers Limited v Okwomi (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E001 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2298 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (ELRC Appeal at Mombasa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2298/eng@2024-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.