Oluoch v Mehta Electricals Limited (Appeal E065 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 2645 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld a dismissal appeal loss but refused to make a low-earning worker pay legal costs, protecting access to justice.
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 Appellant reported back to work after annual leave and was constructively dismissed
- 2.Whether there was evidence that the Appellant absconded
- 3.Whether termination of employment was unfair
- 4.Whether the Trial Court erred in imposing on the Appellant the duty to produce employment records
- 5.Whether the Trial Court misapprehended legal principles on the concept of absconding
- 6.Whether the order awarding costs to the Respondent was appropriate
Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellant was constructively or otherwise dismissed
No termination by the Respondent was established; the Appellant defied lawful instructions to report to the Police and never reported back to work
The Respondent wrote letters on 25th August 2017 and 30th May 2017 asking the Appellant to report to Capital Hill Police Station; he did not report. There was no evidence he returned to work. His claimed witnesses were never availed, and no employment records he was required to exhibit were produced. Compliance with lawful employer instructions is an implied term and a statutory requirement under Section 44(4) of the Employment Act; defiance constitutes insubordination, gross misconduct.
Whether the costs order in favour of the Respondent was appropriate
The costs order was unsuitable against an impoverished General Labourer; the E&LRC regime is designed to protect workers' rights and keep access to industrial justice open
The Claimant earned Kshs 14,786 monthly and had retreated to his rural home as a Juakali worker after losing his job. Although costs follow the event, in the specialized E&LRC jurisdiction the maxim must be contextualized: costs orders against blue-collar workers discourage claims and stifle the advancement of workers' rights. Ground 7 was accordingly allowed.
Legal principles established
#- An implied term of every contract of employment is that the employee shall comply with lawful instructions of the employer; failure amounts to insubordination, a gross misconduct under Section 44(4) of the Employment Act justifying summary dismissal
- The maxim that costs follow the event must be contextualized in the E&LRC's specialized jurisdiction; costs orders against blue-collar workers discourage filing of claims and stifle workers' rights
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal is declined on other Grounds, save Ground No 7
- 2.There shall be no order on costs in this Appeal, and the Trial Court
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Trial Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court at first instance)
- Not stated in judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over an appeal from the Trial Court (Memorandum of Appeal dated 18th June 2021)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the Trial Court judgment dismissing the Claim and allowing the prayers before the Trial Court
No evidence that the contract was terminated; the Appellant defied lawful instructions to report to the Police and did not report to work
Costs
There shall be no order on costs in this Appeal, and the Trial Court.
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.
It is always an implied term in a contract of employment, that an Employee shall comply with any lawful instructions issued by his Employer, or persons placed in authority by his Employer.
Failure to obey instructions results in an act of gross misconduct called insubordination, which the Claimant may well have been dismissed for, summarily.
Although costs follow the event under our civil law, the E&LRC regime is a specialized jurisdiction, designed to encourage the promotion and protection of workers’ rights.
a. The Appeal is declined on other Grounds, save Ground No 7. b. There shall be no order on costs in this Appeal, and the Trial Court.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Oluoch v Mehta Electricals Limited (Appeal E065 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 2645 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2645/eng@2024-10-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.