Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedPetition dated 19th October 2023 (number not stated in judgment)· [2025] KEELRC 2137 (KLR)

Massawa v Shop and Deliver Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E207 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2137 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 July 2025
7,161 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~29 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded an unfairly dismissed call centre agent over Kshs 3.6 million because her employer ignored its own disciplinary rules.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, a call centre agent recruited in February 2017 and confirmed on permanent terms in January 2018, was involved in a road traffic accident on 6th July 2022 and recuperated while working from home under medical advice. She was served with a notice to show cause on 22nd December 2022, attended a disciplinary hearing on 10th January 2023 and was summarily dismissed with effect from 3rd February 2023 on grounds of poor performance and unauthorised absenteeism. Her appeal partially exonerated her on two of three charges but ultimately upheld the dismissal. She petitioned the ELRC seeking declarations of unfair termination and discrimination, notice pay, 12 months' compensation and general damages. The respondent raised a preliminary objection on jurisdiction, arguing the claim belonged in the magistrates' court given her salary level. The court rejected the objection, holding that claims for compensation for violation of Bill of Rights are excluded from magistrates' jurisdiction. On the merits, the court found the respondent breached its own disciplinary policy by giving only about three days to respond to the show cause letter and taking two months to determine the appeal, and failed to produce minutes of the disciplinary hearing or demonstrate procedural compliance under Section 41 of the Employment Act. The dismissal was held unfair and unjustified, and violations of Articles 41, 28 and 47 were established. The court entered judgment for the petitioner with declarations, one month's salary in lieu of notice, 10 months' salary as compensation, general damages of Kshs 3,000,000, costs and interest.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELRC or magistrates' court had jurisdiction

Holding

The preliminary objection was dismissed; the ELRC was properly seized because the petition sought compensation for violation of constitutional rights, which ousts magistrates' court jurisdiction.

Reasoning

Gazette Notice 6024 of 22/6/2022 delegated employment claims up to Kshs 80,000 to magistrates. However, section 5.8(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act excludes claims for compensation for violation of Bill of Rights. Since the petitioner sought constitutional damages, jurisdiction remained with the ELRC.

p. 11
02

Whether the termination was procedurally fair and substantively justified

Holding

The dismissal was unfair and unjustified; the respondent breached its own disciplinary policy and failed to prove a fair hearing under Section 41.

Reasoning

The petitioner was given only about 3 days (not 5 working days) to respond to the NTSC contrary to clause 6.5.1(d); the appeal took 2 months contrary to the 21-day rule; no minutes of the disciplinary hearing were produced; and there was no demonstration she could cross-examine her accusers or present her case. Under Sections 41 and 45(2), the employer bore the burden of proving valid reason and fair procedure, which it failed to discharge.

p. 12
03

Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were breached

Holding

Articles 41, 28 and 47 were breached and she was entitled to damages.

Reasoning

Given the treatment of an employee recuperating from a known accident, the court found inhumane and degrading treatment breaching Article 28, breach of fair labour practices under Article 41, and denial of fair administrative action under Article 47.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • Magistrates' courts have no jurisdiction to hear claims for compensation for violation of Bill of Rights, even where salary falls within gazetted limits
  • Where an employer fails to demonstrate compliance with Section 41 hearing requirements, the dismissal is unfair
  • An employer must adhere to its own disciplinary policy timelines

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the termination of the Petitioner's employment was unprocedural, unfair, unlawful and wrongful contrary to Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution, Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act and Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act
  2. 2.A declaration that the Respondent treated the Petitioner in a degrading and discriminatory manner contrary to Articles 27 and 28 of the Constitution by summarily dismissing her because she had been injured in an accident
  3. 3.A declaration that the Respondent breached the Petitioner's right to fair labour practices, fair disciplinary and administrative process and denied her adequate time to respond to allegations
  4. 4.Payment of 1 month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs 61,250/-)
  5. 5.10 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination (Kshs 612,500/-)
  6. 6.General damages for breach of constitutional rights equivalent to Kshs 3,000,000; total Kshs 3,673,750/- less statutory deductions
  7. 7.Respondents to pay costs of the suit and interest at court rates from the date of judgment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 47
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 27
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 28
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 50
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 41
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 43
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 44
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 45
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 47(5)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 5(3)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 5(7)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 30
  • Fair Administrative Action ActSection 4(3)(a)
  • Magistrates' Courts ActSection 5.8(3)
  • Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 22/6/2022Delegation of jurisdiction to magistrates

Cases cited (4)

  • Charles Wanjala Watima v Nyali Golf & Country Club Ltd
    [2013] KEELRC 704 (KLR)
  • Gichuru v Package Insurance Brokers Ltd
    (Petition 36 of 2019) [2021] KESC 12 (KLR)
  • Anthony Mkala Chitavi v Malindi Water & Sewerage Company Ltd
    [2013] KEELRC 920 (KLR)
  • Standard Bank of South Africa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration and others
    (JR 662/06) (2007) ZALC 94; 4 BLLR 356 (LC); (2008) 29 ILJ 1239 (LC)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Constitution and Employment Act; court held magistrates' courts excluded from Bill of Rights compensation claims

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Massawa v Shop and Deliver Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E207 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2137 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 19th October 2023 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2137/eng@2025-07-22

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.