|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| June 2022 |
|
|
Termination for gross dishonesty upheld; late bias claims and non‑production of investigation report insufficient to overturn dismissal.
* Employment law – unfair termination – substantive fairness – gross dishonesty: altering credit application and concealing information can justify dismissal. * Procedural fairness – investigation report: non-production is not per se fatal where investigation was conducted and employee had opportunity to defend. * Civil procedure – revision: allegations of bias or record tampering first raised on revision are afterthoughts and cannot vitiate award.
|
30 June 2022 |
|
Where the arbitration record is irretrievable and uncertified, the court may quash the award and order a retrial before a different arbitrator.
* Labour law – arbitration award – missing/untraceable CMA record – reconstruction of record versus nullification – trial de novo ordered where certified proceedings unavailable and reconstruction impracticable; reconstruction requires participatory process and confirmatory certification (see Madololyo; Schoombe).
|
30 June 2022 |
|
CMA lacked jurisdiction because the parties’ written agreement was a management (contract for services), not an employment contract.
* Labour jurisdiction – Distinction between contract of service (employment) and contract for services (management) – control, integration, payment, exclusivity relevant. * Jurisdiction – CMA limited to employment contracts listed in section 14(1) of ELRA; management contracts fall outside and are for civil courts. * Remedies – Claims arising from non-employment contracts are not arbitrable before CMA.
|
30 June 2022 |
|
Procedural unfairness in termination reduces compensation where substantive reason (abscondence) existed but proper disciplinary process was not followed.
Employment law – unfair termination – substantive vs procedural fairness; abscondence as serious misconduct; requirement for disciplinary hearing; assessment and reduction of compensation for procedural unfairness; revision of CMA award.
|
30 June 2022 |
|
Illness of counsel and short unexplained delay constituted sufficient cause to extend time to file the appeal; extension granted.
* Labour procedure – extension of time – Rule 56(1) Labour Court Rules, 2007 – good cause required for enlargement of time.
* Evidence – medical certificate and affidavit as proof of counsels’ incapacity – relevance to explaining delay.
* Delay – short unexplained period not necessarily fatal if not excessive; court’s discretion to extend time.
|
30 June 2022 |
|
Court upheld termination for breach of employer SOP and found investigatory procedures and fairness sufficient; revision dismissed.
Employment law — unfair termination — validity of reasons and procedural fairness — breach of employer SOP and personal business at workplace — application of G.N. No. 42 of 2007 (Rules 12 and 13) — investigatory evidence and admission — CCTV evidence not tendered but investigation found sufficient.
|
30 June 2022 |
|
Court granted seven‑day extension to file revision, finding the short delay excusable and not due to negligence.
Labour law – extension of time to file revision – accounting for delay – technical/excusable delay – no requirement to assess prospects of success before granting extension – s.91(1)(a) ELRA (timing of revision).
|
29 June 2022 |
|
Court grants 14‑day extension where delay was technical, not negligent, allowing filing of notice of intention to appeal.
Extension of time – Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.11(1) – sufficient cause – accounting for delay – technical/incompetent appeal vs negligence – Lyamuya; William Shija; illegality/error apparent on record.
|
29 June 2022 |
|
Application challenging both an out-of-time ex parte award and a timely ruling was dismissed as time-barred.
Labour procedure — Rule 24(1)-(3) Labour Court Rules — alignment of reliefs in notice and affidavit; limitation — time bar for applications to set aside ex parte awards; consequences of combining timely and out-of-time challenges.
|
29 June 2022 |
|
Revision dismissed: revisional court will not reopen unraised issues; CMA properly analysed evidence and upheld retrenchment.
* Labour law – retrenchment – procedural and substantive fairness – consultation obligations under section 38 Labour and Employment Relations Act (Cap 366 R.E.2019) – consultation steps are guidelines, not a rigid checklist. * Evidence evaluation – sufficiency of notices, selection method (LIFO) and exhibits in upholding validity of retrenchment. * Revision jurisdiction – revisional court will not entertain new issues not raised at the CMA. * Reliefs – awards must be within prayers sought at CMA.
|
28 June 2022 |
|
Extension of time granted to file revision where alleged illegality (wrong party sued) and counsel’s inaction caused delay.
* Labour — Extension of time — Revision of CMA award — Delay attributed to advocate's failure to prosecute — Execution initiated.
* Procedural law — Illegality in impugned decision (wrong party sued) — illegality as good cause for extension (Valambia; VIP Engineering).
* Service — substituted service and ex parte prosecution of application (respondent absent).
|
28 June 2022 |
|
Review dismissed: no apparent error and dispute was time-barred; appeal, not review, was the proper remedy.
* Labour law – review of court decisions under Rule 27(7) – requirement for concise grounds without narration or argument. * Civil procedure – review vs appeal – apparent error on the face of the record must be self-evident. * Jurisdiction – CMA time limits for filing disputes and effect of failure to seek condonation.
|
27 June 2022 |
|
Fixed-term contract expired as agreed; absence of employee's renewal notice meant no reasonable expectation and no unfair termination.
* Employment law – Fixed-term contracts – Automatic expiry of fixed-term contracts unless contract provides otherwise – Rule 4(2) GN No.42/2007.
* Employment law – Reasonable expectation of renewal – Employee duty to demonstrate employer conduct or representations giving rise to expectation; failure to notify renewal as contractually required defeats claim.
* Labour procedure – Revision of CMA award – Court will not interfere where contract terms and evidence show no unfair termination.
|
27 June 2022 |
|
The applicant’s review was an appeal in disguise; no patent error on the face of the record justified review.
Labour law — Review jurisdiction — Error apparent on the face of the record — Appeal in disguise — Review limited to patent mistakes or newly discovered evidence — Re‑evaluation of evidence not permissible under review.
|
27 June 2022 |
|
Employer failed to prove misconduct; dismissal substantively unfair and arbitral compensation upheld under ELRA.
* Employment law – unfair dismissal – substantive and procedural fairness – employer bears onus to prove misconduct. * Evidence – contradictions between employer witnesses and disciplinary record undermine allegations of employee misconduct. * Disciplinary procedure – hearing findings (suspicion vs. guilt) cannot be supplanted by termination letter. * Remedies – arbitrator entitled to compensation under Employment and Labour Relations Act (ss.40(1)(c), 41(5), 42).
|
27 June 2022 |
|
Arbitrator erred by awarding one-month compensation rather than statutory twelve months for unfair termination.
* Labour law – Unfair dismissal – substantive and procedural fairness; statutory compensation under s.40(1)(c) – twelve months' salary.
* Revision – review of CMA award – error of law in quantum of compensation.
* Evidence – employer's burden to justify operational requirements; unsupported afterthought rejected.
* Proof of monetary claims – salary arrears dismissed for want of evidence.
|
27 June 2022 |
|
Condonation dismissed where sickness evidence lacked credibility and applicant failed to account for each day of delay.
Labour law – condonation/extension of time – fixed-term contract non-renewal – requirement to account for each day of delay – credibility of affidavit evidence (traditional healer) – arbitrator’s discretion and consideration of prospects of success under Rule 11(3)(c).
|
27 June 2022 |
|
Application to set aside union election dismissed as time-barred where applicants filed beyond the 60-day limitation.
Labour law — union election disputes — limitation period where none specified in union rules — Rule 55 Labour Court Rules — application of Law of Limitation Act (60 days) — time-bar — mandatory nature of limitation — dismissal of out-of-time applications.
|
17 June 2022 |
|
Serving an end-of-contract notice after automatic renewal and after work commenced rendered the respondent's termination unfair; CMA award upheld.
Employment law – fixed-term contract – automatic renewal – notice served after renewal – procedural and substantive unfair termination; evidential burden to prove salary for compensation calculations; review of CMA award.
|
17 June 2022 |
|
Employer proved fair termination for negligent unauthorised conduct; procedural irregularities immaterial due to admissions; reinstatement inappropriate.
Employment law – unfair termination – burden on employer to prove fair reason and fair procedure (s.39, s.37(2) ELRA); negligence in banking – unauthorised alteration of security; procedural fairness – admissions may render full disciplinary hearing unnecessary; remedy – reinstatement inappropriate where trust destroyed.
|
17 June 2022 |
|
A strike-out for mixed time‑bar claims was interlocutory; revision under Rule 50 was incompetent and dismissed.
Labour law — Procedural law — Revision jurisdiction — Order striking out for time-bar issues held interlocutory and not revisable under Rule 50 of the Labour Court Rules; finality of rights is the test for revisionability.
|
17 June 2022 |
|
Mediator erred dismissing a labour claim as time‑barred where disputed factual evidence on termination was not before the CMA.
* Labour law – preliminary objection – time‑bar – where date of termination/notification is disputed, preliminaries requiring evidence cannot dispose of claim.
* Evidence – competence and admissibility – documents not in record cannot be relied upon at preliminary stage.
* Procedural fairness – right to be heard and to cross‑examine on evidence tendered.
* Civil procedure – remittal to CMA for arbitration on merits where disputed facts exist.
|
17 June 2022 |
|
Court granted extension of time to file revision, finding good cause and that the delay was not inordinate.
* Labour law – extension of time to file revision under section 91(1)(a) – six-week limitation period. * Civil procedure – Rule 56(1) Labour Court Rules – court’s discretionary power to extend time on good cause shown. * Procedural defects/striking out – whether corrective refiling delay constitutes sufficient cause. * Requirement to account for each day of delay and concept of inordinate delay.
|
16 June 2022 |
|
Material discrepancies and unexplained reassignment at the CMA vitiated the proceedings; award quashed and rehearing ordered.
Labour procedure — Arbitration proceedings — Material discrepancies between handwritten and typed records; reassignment of arbitrator without reasons — Proceedings vitiated — Award quashed — Hearing de novo ordered.
|
15 June 2022 |
|
Revision dismissed: absence of evidence of missing work permit meant CMA retained jurisdiction and award confirmed.
Labour law – unfair termination – jurisdiction of CMA – foreign employees and work permits – burden of proving absence of work permit – issues must be pleaded and proved at CMA; revision cannot raise new factual issues.
|
15 June 2022 |
|
Arbitrator lawfully awarded 12 months' compensation; CBA entitlements unpleaded and unproven, revision dismissed.
Labour law – retrenchment – remedies for unfair termination under Section 40(1) – reinstatement, re‑engagement or twelve months' compensation are alternative and discretionary; Pleadings and proof – CMA Form No.1 as plaint – parties bound by pleadings; Collective Bargaining Agreement entitlements not awardable at revision where unpleaded/unproved; Revisional court not forum for fresh evidence.
|
15 June 2022 |
|
Fixed‑term employee’s dismissal for alleged fighting was substantively and procedurally unfair; CMA award upheld.
* Employment law – unfair termination – substantive and procedural fairness of dismissal for alleged fighting on duty.
* Fixed‑term contracts – remuneration determined by contract terms (hourly rate) for compensation calculations.
* Disciplinary procedure – requirement to call evidence and avoid procedurally flawed hearings; cross‑examination without applicant’s evidence undermines fairness.
* Evidence – corroboration by contemporaneous statements, police records and related criminal findings relevant to employment misconduct disputes.
* Judicial review – High Court upholds CMA award where termination is both substantively and procedurally unfair.
|
13 June 2022 |
|
Sickness of the applicant’s legal manager constituted good cause for a seven‑day delay, so extension to file revision granted.
Labour law – extension of time to file revision of CMA award; Section 91(1) ELRA; Lyamuya criteria for 'good cause' – accounting for delay, diligence, inordinate delay; sickness of legal officer as justification.
|
13 June 2022 |
|
Termination was both substantively and procedurally unfair; CMA award upheld and employer's revision dismissed.
Employment law — unfair termination; sufficiency and clarity of disciplinary charge; gross negligence vs ordinary negligence; procedural fairness and bias in disciplinary hearings; remedies for unfair dismissal (compensation, notice, severance).
|
10 June 2022 |
|
Court quashed CMA award and held the respondent's dismissal for forging test results substantively and procedurally fair.
* Labour law – unfair termination – parties bound by their pleadings; arbitrator cannot decide unpleaded issues. * Evidence – oral evidence may be sufficient; absence of documentary corroboration affects weight, not admissibility. * Employment misconduct – processing unregistered test samples, using fictitious templates and wrong barcodes; endangering patient and breaching medical ethics. * CMA award reviewed and set aside where arbitrator misdirected in evaluation of evidence.
|
10 June 2022 |
|
Deficient investigation evidence and absent key witness made bribery unproven; dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair, reinstatement upheld.
Labour law – unfair dismissal – substantive and procedural fairness; admissibility of investigation reports and electronic evidence; requirement to call key witnesses; adverse inference for failure to call key witness; heightened civil standard for allegations amounting to crime; reinstatement and practicability of remedy.
|
10 June 2022 |
|
The applicant failed to prove misconduct or follow fair disciplinary procedure; the respondent's dismissal was unfair.
Labour law – unfair termination – substantive and procedural fairness; employer’s burden to prove misconduct under ELRA and the Code of Good Practice; probational confirmation and estoppel; right to receive investigation/audit report and to be interviewed; proper composition of disciplinary committee; revision of CMA award.
|
10 June 2022 |
|
|
9 June 2022 |
|
The applicant's retrenchment claims were barred by res judicata; the revision application was dismissed with no costs.
* Res judicata – application where prior proceedings, including Court of Appeal, finally determined same cause of action – Section 9 Civil Procedure Code.
* Pleadings – requirement to include whole claim arising from a cause of action – Order II Rule 2 CPC; omission or relinquishment bars subsequent suit absent leave.
* Jurisdiction – CMA functus officio where matter already finally decided by competent court.
|
8 June 2022 |
|
Revision application dismissed as time-barred; electronic filing printout contradicted sworn documents and limitation is jurisdictional.
Labour law – Revision of CMA award – Limitation period under Section 91(1)(a) ELRA – Electronic filing proof – Jurisdictional nature of limitation – Article 107A not a basis to evade time limits – Alleged fraudulent filing documentation.
|
7 June 2022 |
|
Failure to account for each day of delay warranted refusal of condonation; alleged illegality and naming errors did not justify extension.
* Labour procedure – condonation/extension of time – requirement to show sufficient cause and account for each day of delay.
* Procedural law – illegality as a ground for extension – limits where no clear illegality appears in the impugned ruling.
* Civil procedure – doctrine of misnomer/finger litigation – correction of wrongly named parties.
* Constitutional/administrative law – right to be heard cannot be asserted where statutory time limits are not observed.
|
7 June 2022 |
|
Omission of an arbitrator's signature to authenticate each witness's evidence nullifies CMA proceedings and mandates rehearing.
Labour law — CMA procedural requirements — oath and affirmation compliance; Rule 19(2) interpretation; arbitrator's signature at end of each witness's evidence — omission fatal; nullification and remittal for rehearing de novo.
|
7 June 2022 |
|
Non-confirmation after probation for repeated lateness was lawful; CMA award for unfair termination quashed.
* Labour law – Probationary employment – Non-confirmation vs termination – Repeated lateness and warnings as fair reason for non‑confirmation; procedural fairness under GN. No. 42 of 2007.
* Labour dispute review – CMA award improperly procured where arbitrator mischaracterised non-confirmation as unfair termination.
|
7 June 2022 |
|
Applicant’s reliance on a general provision instead of s.47(3) LDCA rendered the leave application incompetent and it was struck out.
Appeal procedure — certificate/leave to appeal to Court of Appeal where appeal originates from Ward Tribunal — necessity to cite Section 47(3) Land Disputes Courts Act; mis‑citation of enabling provision renders application incompetent; overriding objective cannot cure mandatory procedural defects; application struck out.
|
6 June 2022 |
|
Section 37(5) bars disciplinary action only after criminal charges are before a court, not during police investigation.
Employment law – unfair termination; substantive and procedural fairness; employer duty to prove fairness; Electronic Filing Rules (Rule 21(1)) – date of filing; Labour law s.37(5) – disciplinary action barred only where employee is charged in court; evidence – circumstantial proof and CCTV-related investigative reports.
|
6 June 2022 |
|
General damages are discretionary and need not be strictly proved, but unpleaded, excessive awards will not be granted.
* Labour law – unfair termination – fixed‑term contract terminated early – mediation compensation and arbitral award of statutory entitlements; general damages claim dismissed.
* Damages – general damages discretionary – need not be strictly or specifically pleaded like special damages.
* Appellate review – interference with discretionary award of damages only where wrong legal principle applied or award is plainly erroneous.
* Pleadings – large unpleaded quantum raised in evidence may be rejected as unjust enrichment.
|
6 June 2022 |
|
Arbitrator wrongly admitted contested termination letter at preliminary objection; dispute remitted for full evidential hearing on limitation.
Labour law – jurisdiction – preliminary objection – admissibility of documents at preliminary objection stage – limitation of actions – preliminary objections must be pure points of law not dependent on disputed facts – right to be heard and proof by evidence – striking out vs dismissal of time‑barred matters.
|
6 June 2022 |
|
Presumptive factors in s.61 and the engagement letter established employment; CMA award of reinstatement upheld.
Labour law – employment relationship – s.61 presumption and factors (control, hours, integration, economic dependence) – letter of engagement as evidence; unfair termination – burden on employer to prove fairness and procedural compliance; reinstatement and compensation under ELRA and Code of Good Practice.
|
3 June 2022 |
|
Failure to file the mandatory notice of intention under Regulation 34 GN.47/2017 renders a revision incompetent and is struck out.
Labour law — Revision procedure — Regulation 34 GN. No. 47/2017 — Mandatory notice of intention to lodge revision — "Shall" denotes compulsory compliance — Prior permission to refile does not waive mandatory procedural requirements — Failure to file notice renders revision incompetent and leads to striking out.
|
3 June 2022 |
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause for unexplained delay to seek revision of CMA award; extension refused.
* Labour law – extension of time – application to set aside CMA award – statutory 42‑day period under s.91(1)(a) – applicant must account for each day of delay; representative suit or struck‑out applications do not automatically excuse unexplained delay; Rule 56(1) discretionary power exercised judiciously.
|
2 June 2022 |
|
Work-related illness can justify condonation of delay in referring unfair termination disputes to the CMA.
* Labour law – condonation of delay – Rule 10(1) Labour Institutions (Mediation and Arbitration) Rules, 2007 (GN No.64) – applicable time limit for unfair termination referrals; * Principles for extension of time (Lyamuya) – length of delay, reasons, arguable point/illegality, prejudice; * Sickness/work-related illness as sufficient cause for delay – hospitalization not strictly required; * Review of CMA decision – whether retrenchment was genuine in context of occupational illness.
|
2 June 2022 |
|
Applicants' sickness justified a 99-day delay; court granted condonation and ordered the dispute to be heard.
Labour law — condonation for late filing — sufficient cause — sickness and medical evidence as justification for delay; Procedure — preliminary objection under Regulation 34(1) GN No.47/2017 — effect of failure to re-join on determination of objections; CMA review — evaluation of medical reports and inordinate delay standard.
|
2 June 2022 |