Court backs dismissal of JKIA officer over miraa transport breach

"Air travel is a security-sensitive undertaking, and there is a reason why the respondent (KAA) prohibited the conveyance of miraa as in-cabin baggage. KAA had valid and justifiable reasons for terminating the claimant’s service," the court said.

WNA, who joined the authority in 2007 as a security warden, was dismissed in October 2018 after an internal investigation linked him to the prohibited conveyance of miraa through Terminal 1B at JKIA.

The incident involved a bag of miraa passing through passenger screening and boarding an Emirates flight to Dubai, contrary to a KAA managing director’s circular banning miraa in aircraft cabins. The circular stated that miraa could only be transported as cargo. 

At the disciplinary hearing, the employee was accused of failing to search a bag containing miraa that later found its way into the aircraft cabin. 

WNA challenged the dismissal, arguing that he was unfairly blamed despite not operating the X-ray machine at the time. He said he was a bag searcher and could only act when a screener flagged suspicious luggage. 

He accused the authority of breaching the Employment Act by failing to prove misconduct, denying him a fair hearing and ignoring exculpatory evidence. He sought more than Sh3.3 million in compensation, including damages and back pay. 

KAA defended the dismissal, stating that WNA was a certified screener bound by standard operating procedures and security circulars. It said CCTV footage showed him positioned behind the X-ray operator and failing to intervene. 

The authority also cited a previous warning issued months earlier, after the officer facilitated the illegal transport of miraa through another terminal on a Kenya Airways flight to Mumbai, prompting a complaint from the Indian government. 

"It was clear and known to the claimant that miraa (khat) was not allowed to pass through the passenger terminals, and yet he still allowed it. The claimant was unable to convince the disciplinary committee of his innocence, and consequently, his employment was terminated," said KAA. 

In its decision, the court underscored the security-sensitive nature of air travel and the need for strict compliance with screening protocols. 

Jack Bwana: Why ground handling excellence is the best strategy for Kenyan airports

"The court takes judicial notice that air travel is a security-intensive transport system," the judge said, adding that passenger and aircraft safety is a key operational requirement. 

"It is, as such, a key operational requirement that air passengers and their luggage are screened to ensure they do not carry on board the aircraft any prohibited item," the court stressed. 

The court noted that WNA admitted he knew miraa was prohibited in aircraft cabins and could only be transported as cargo. It found that the authority genuinely believed he failed to prevent a prohibited item from entering the cabin. 

Citing Section 43 of the Employment Act, the court held that an employer need only show reasons it "genuinely believed to exist" at the time of termination, assessed on a balance of probabilities.

The judge cautioned against courts substituting their judgment for that of employers in disciplinary matters where reasonable grounds exist. 

"Once the court is persuaded that there existed reasonable grounds upon which a reasonable employer would consider termination, it should not interfere," the ruling stated. 

On procedure, the court found that the officer received a show-cause letter, responded in writing, attended a disciplinary hearing with representation, and pursued an appeal that was heard and determined. 

"The respondent reasonably followed a fair procedure while terminating the claimant’s service," the court said, citing compliance with the Employment Act. 

Given the prior warning and the seriousness of the breach, the court concluded that dismissal was proportionate. 

"The court notes that the claimant was not a first offender for a similar offence, and barely a month had passed when he was warned over a similar offence. The court is therefore persuaded that the respondent had valid and justifiable reasons for terminating the claimant’s service," said the court. 

→ [email protected]

Follow our WhatsApp channel for the latest business and markets updates.