Automated Summary
Key Facts
Josephat Ondieki was employed by Kenya Credit Traders Limited as a salesman (Grade 1C) from August 13, 1992, and promoted to Kitale shop manager in September 1995 with a salary of KES 3,830. In September 1995, two customers used fake documents to purchase goods, leading to a loss of KES 35,000. Ondieki was dismissed on December 11, 1995, with one month's salary in lieu of notice. The lower court awarded him salary from January 31, 1996, KES 40,000 in general damages, and costs. The appeal overturned this, ruling the dismissal lawful under the employment contract (one month's notice) and stating the lower court erred in awarding damages and salary beyond the contractual terms. The case centered on whether Ondieki, as manager, was responsible for verifying documents and whether his dismissal was lawful.
Issues
- What damages the respondent was entitled to for wrongful dismissal, including general damages and salary in lieu of notice.
- Whether the respondent's termination of services was unlawful under the employment contract.
Holdings
- The court held that the respondent was not entitled to general damages or reinstatement, as the contract of employment only provided for one month's salary in lieu of notice, and the magistrate erred in awarding additional compensation beyond this.
- The court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court's judgment, finding that the respondent's termination was lawful as he approved transactions involving fake documents, thereby breaching his duty as shop manager.
Remedies
- The appeal is merited and allowed. The lower court's judgment is set aside.
- The appellant is awarded costs of this appeal and in the lower court.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that damages for wrongful dismissal should be based on the terms of the employment contract. The employer adhered to the contractual provision allowing termination with one month's salary in lieu of notice, and thus the respondent was not entitled to additional damages beyond this stipulated amount.
Precedent Name
DALMAS B. OGYE -VS.- K.N.T.C.
Judge Name
- Wambilyangah J.
- Kaburu Bauni
Passage Text
- The respondent was not entitled to any general damages even if his dismissal was found to be unlawful. The terms and conditions of his service were well spelt out. He was only entitled to one month's pay in lieu of notice. In the case of DALMAS B. OGYE -VS.- K.N.T.C. Lt. .CA Civil Appeal No.125 of 1996 the court of appeal held that the only damages an employee would be entitled to is the amount he would be entitled to if his employment was brought to an end in the manner stipulated in the contract of service. The contracts of service between the appellant and respondent was for one month's salary in lieu of notice. The learned magistrate therefore erred in ordering that he be paid his salary from 31/1/96. He did not even say until when. Neither did he say what allowances and bonuses he was entitled to.
- All in all I find that the appeal is merited. The same is allowed and the lower court's judgment is therefore set aside. The appellant will have costs of this appeal and in the lower court.
- The main issues before the court were whether the respondent's termination of services were unlawful and if so what damages he was entitled to. The respondent was the shop manager. It is not in dispute that two people used fake documents to purchase goods. Though the magistrate found that respondent was not the one to blame there was evidence that he was the one who was responsible and he had the duty to satisfy himself that the documents used were proper. The two transactions complained of were handled by him and other salesmen. However it was clear from the evidence that he is the one who gave final authority for the documents to be accepted. DW2 SIMIYU WANYONYI had testified that he noticed that the identity card of one of the customers seemed to have been interfered with. The name in the Id/Card did not tally with the one in the pay slips. He therefore directed the two customers to the respondent together with the documents. The respondent approved them as genuine. It was therefore obvious that he was not careful as the person in charge. There is evidence that the appellant called for his explanation before his services were terminated. The learned magistrate therefore was wrong to hold that the termination was unlawful. The evidence on record clearly show otherwise.