Godfrey Oduor Odhiambo v Ukwala Supermarket Kisumu Limited [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Explore the case summary of Godfrey Oduor Odhiambo v Ukwala Supermarket Kisumu Limited [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal principles and judicial insights. Perfect for legal research and reference.

Case Brief: Godfrey Oduor Odhiambo v Ukwala Supermarket Kisumu Limited [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Godfrey Oduor Odhiambo v. Ukwala Supermarket Kisumu Limited
- Case Number: Cause No. 38 of 2016
- Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Date Delivered: 15th October 2020
- Category of Law: Employment Law (Civil)
- Judge(s): Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues for resolution by the court were:
i. Whether the summary dismissal of the claimant was for a valid reason and followed a fair procedure.
ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought, including compensation for unlawful dismissal, notice pay, and a certificate of service.

3. Facts of the Case:
The claimant, Godfrey Oduor Odhiambo, was employed by Ukwala Supermarket as a shop assistant from November 2010 until his dismissal on 12th November 2015. He served as the Chairman of the Central Staff Committee and was involved in discussions regarding a takeover of the supermarket by Choppies Company. The claimant was authorized to attend union meetings in Nairobi, which he did, but upon returning, he was accused of absconding work for seven days. He received a show cause letter on 9th November 2015 and was subsequently dismissed on 18th November 2015 without terminal benefits. The respondent argued that the dismissal was justified due to the claimant's alleged insubordination and absence from work.

4. Procedural History:
The case was initiated on 11th February 2016 and amended on 11th March 2016. The claimant sought various reliefs, including salary in lieu of notice, underpayments, severance pay, and general damages for unfair termination. Evidence was presented by both parties, including testimonies from the claimant and a respondent manager (RW1). The court evaluated the evidence, focusing on the legitimacy of the dismissal process and the reasons provided by the respondent.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered provisions of the Employment Act, 2007, particularly sections 43, 41, 45, and 47(5), which outline the burden of proof regarding the justification for dismissal and the requirement for a fair disciplinary process.
- Case Law: The court referenced previous decisions, such as *Ikahra Hussein Noor and Bishar Hussein Nor vs Kadertina Hajee Essak Ltd* and *Francis Nyongesa Kweya vs Eldoret Water and Sanitation Company Ltd*, which established precedents regarding unfair dismissal and the employer's burden to prove valid reasons for termination.
- Application: The court found that the respondent failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate the claims of the claimant's absconding. The claimant successfully demonstrated that he had permission to attend union meetings and was not absent without justification. The court concluded that the dismissal was not only procedurally flawed but also substantively unjustified, amounting to victimization due to the claimant's role as a union representative.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the claimant, awarding him Kshs. 187,060, which included Kshs. 17,030 for one month’s notice and Kshs. 170,030 as compensation for unlawful dismissal. The court emphasized the importance of protecting employee rights, particularly for those representing workers in negotiations.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions recorded in this case, as the judgment was delivered by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The case highlights the critical balance between employer rights and employee protections, especially in the context of union activities. The court's decision underscored the necessity for employers to adhere to fair procedures in disciplinary actions and the potential repercussions of wrongful termination. The outcome serves as a reminder of the legal obligations employers have in safeguarding the rights of their employees, particularly those in representative roles.