CASE BRIEF

Petition E.001 of 2024: Frankline Ombasa & Elizabeth Lokooli -Vs- Kenya National Bureau of Statistics & 3 Others

The dispute concerned unlawful discrimination where the grounds for dismissal was disability with the court finding the Employers guilty for unlawful termination because they had been aware of the Petitioners’ disability prior to offering them jobs and could therefore not use it as a basis of claiming that they would be unfit for the roles.

Introduction

Background

The petitioners are two people living with disability who applied for jobs as Supervisors for the 2019 census within Kisii county . They were both offered the roles after a series of interviews and shortlisting by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Their contracts stipulated that they would be paid Kshs 2,500 per day for 27 days.

However, before they could start working, they received letters from the Kisii County Commissioner informing them that the Census Committee had reached a decision to terminate their employment owing to the ‘extent of their disabilities’ which in the committee’s view, would hinder them from performing their duties.

Feeling aggrieved by the decision, they instituted the suit for discrimination based on disability, and unlawful termination.

The Case

The Petitioners argued that the reasons given for their dismissal were cruel and discriminatory which is contrary to the law. They also argued that the constitution mandates that at least 5% of all opportunities be reserved for persons with disability.

The Respondent’s on the other hand argued that the roles were labour intensive and required a lot of movement, which the Petitioners would be unable to perform because of their disabilities.

Holding of the Court

The court agreed with the Petitioners, adding that the Respondents were well aware of their disabilities during the interview stage and still proceeded to recruit them. 

More importantly, the court highlighted the Reasonable Accommodation Doctrine stating that the Respondents should have demonstrated that they took reasonable steps to accommodate the special needs of the Petitioners in the jobs.

Impact of the Decision

The decision reinforced the Reasonable Accommodation Doctrine which demands that Employers ensure that they first take reasonable steps to retain disabled employees before terminating them.

The Doctrine applies both during hiring and also where an employee becomes disabled in the course of employment. The courts will require an employer to demonstrate that they took steps to specially accommodate the employee including:

  1. Assignment of lighter duties with commensurate pay
  2. Provision of special equipment and facilities i.e ramps, reinforced railings
  3. Attempting to retrain and re-assign to different duties if the current role is untenable

Court’s have in very few instances upheld an employer’s decision to terminate an employee on account of disability. It is however important to note that the doctrine does not apply where the job requires a special or unique set of skills or ability that person’s with disability cannot perform, i.e where the role is of a loader and the person applying or employee has no limbs to load the cargo.

Key Insights at a Glance

Denying or terminating employment of grounds of disability is generally unlawful.
One can only terminate an employee on grounds of disability if the disability prevents them from performing the core function of their job.
Employers should utilize detailed job descriptions and expectations when advertising for jobs to avoid being labeled as discriminatory in their recruitment process.

Related Insights

INSIGHTS

Increasing Appetite for Mergers and Acquisitions in Kenya’s Financial Sector

READ INSIGHT
INSIGHTS

The Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill, 2022

READ INSIGHT
INSIGHTS

Summary of Court Appeal Ruling and Impact on Taxes

READ INSIGHT