Samuel Uche Ajaegbu v Eagle Vet Kenya Limited [2018] eKLR

Key Facts

Issues

• The court determined whether the claimant's summary dismissal by the managing director without notice or disciplinary hearing constituted unfair termination under section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007.
• The court evaluated the respondent's counterclaim for recovery of furnishings provided to the claimant's residence, ruling there was no contractual obligation for their return and dismissing the counterclaim with costs.
• The court assessed whether the claimant was entitled to compensation (6 months' gross pay), general damages, and other remedies for unfair termination, considering the 50% mutual contribution to the termination.
• The court addressed whether the claimant should bear the costs of the suit, affirming that costs follow the event and dismissing the application to review the cost order as unfounded.

Holdings

• The claimant was awarded 6 months' gross pay (Kshs.210,000.00 and USD 18,000) as compensation for unfair termination, with the Court apportioning 50% responsibility to each party. Reinstatement was deemed abandoned due to lack of submissions.
• The Court determined that the claimant's summary dismissal was unfair due to non-compliance with Section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007, which mandates notice and a disciplinary hearing even in cases of summary dismissal. The termination lacked a proper disciplinary process, rendering it unlawful.
• The respondent's counterclaim for the return of furnishings was dismissed as there was no contractual provision requiring their return. The arrangement to furnish the claimant's residence was deemed a permanent transfer of property to the claimant.
• The application to review the costs order was dismissed with costs. The Court upheld the initial ruling that costs would be in the cause, noting the managing director's unilateral termination decision and active participation in the case.

Remedies

• The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant a sum of Kshs.210,000.00 and USD 18,000 (less tax) by 01.08.2018, with interest if not paid by that date.
• The respondent is required to pay the costs of the suit as part of the court's judgment.
• The court declared that the termination of the claimant's employment by the respondent's managing director was unfair and unlawful.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The court held that the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair due to non-compliance with Section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007, which mandates that employees must be given notice and a disciplinary hearing before termination for misconduct or poor performance. The respondent failed to provide these procedural safeguards, rendering the dismissal unlawful.
• The court determined that the costs of the suit should remain 'in the cause' as initially ordered, emphasizing that costs follow the event unless the court deems otherwise. The respondent's application for review of the costs order was dismissed for lacking valid grounds under the Civil Procedure Act.

Precedent Name

• Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Meru North Farmers Sacco Limited
• Rebecca Ann Maina & 2 Others v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology
• Shankar Saklani v DHL Global Forwarding (K) Limited
• D.K. Marete v Teachers Service Commission

Cited Statute

• Employment Act, 2007
• Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21

Judge Name

Passage Text

• The Court returns that there was no contractual provision that the claimant returns the items... the counterclaim will therefore fail with costs.
• The Court puts each party's contribution to the claimant's termination at 50%... the claimant is awarded 6 months' gross pay in salary and house allowance.
• The Court returns that the summary dismissal was unfair for want of compliance with section 41 of the Act.