Easy Coach v Samuel Chege Njogu
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed a bus inspector's dismissal was unfair because the employer relied on hearsay evidence, but cut his compensation from twelve months' salary to three.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the appellant had a valid and fair reason for dismissal under sections 43 and 45
The dismissal lacked a valid and fair reason because the appellant's case rested on hearsay: the passenger was not called and his statement did not identify the respondent as the person who received the fare.
Section 43 places the burden on the employer to prove reasons for termination, and section 45 requires that those reasons be valid and fair. The appellant relied mainly on written statements of the passenger, Simon Mbajah, and its chief inspector, but the passenger never testified and his statement did not clearly identify the respondent. On a balance of probabilities the employer must have credible material linking the employee to the misconduct; inference alone was insufficient. The trial court's finding was therefore upheld.
Whether the disciplinary process satisfied section 41 procedural fairness
The process was unfair because the respondent was denied access to the evidence relied upon and had no opportunity to confront the accusations.
Section 41 requires the employer to explain the reasons for termination and give the employee an opportunity to respond. The Court, following Kenfreight and Postal Corporation v Tanui, held that fairness requires notifying the employee of specific allegations, providing access to the evidence, and a meaningful opportunity to challenge it. The respondent denied being furnished with the passenger's or inspector's statements, and the makers were not available for questioning, undermining his ability to challenge the allegations.
Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in awarding twelve months' compensation
The discretion was not properly exercised; the maximum award was substituted with three months' gross salary given the respondent's short service of about two years and the absence of reasons justifying the maximum.
Section 49(1)(c) caps compensation at twelve months' salary, while section 49(4) requires consideration of factors including length of service and the employee's contribution to the dismissal. Following CMC Aviation and Ol Pejeta, the Court reiterated that the maximum award must not be routine and requires explanation. The judge awarded the maximum without justification despite the respondent's short service, warranting appellate interference and substitution with three months' salary.
Legal principles established
#- In employment disputes the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities, and even under section 43(2) the employer must have credible material connecting the employee to the alleged wrongdoing
- Procedural fairness under section 41 requires more than holding a hearing: the employee must be informed of the allegations, given access to the evidence relied upon, and afforded a meaningful opportunity to challenge that evidence
- Internal disciplinary proceedings are not subject to the strict rules of evidence, but the material relied upon by an employer must be sufficiently credible to justify disciplinary action
- The maximum award of twelve months' salary under section 49(1)(c) must not be granted as a matter of course and must be supported by sound judicial reasoning anchored in the considerations set out in section 49(4)
- A first appeal proceeds by way of rehearing; the appellate court must reconsider and independently evaluate the evidence while making allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
Court orders
#- 1.The award of twelve months' salary as compensation for unfair termination is set aside and substituted with an award of three months' gross salary (Kshs. 14,071.53 x 3 = Kshs. 42,214.59)
- 2.The remainder of the trial court's judgment (notice pay, unpaid leave, March 2013 salary, rest days pay, certificate of service) is upheld
- 3.Each party to bear its own costs
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- ELRC Cause No. 1133 of 2013
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Employment and Labour Relations Court (first appeal by way of rehearing)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Easy Coach v Samuel Chege Njogu", Case Analysis (2026). Employment and Labour Relations Court Appeal from ELRC Cause No. 1133 of 2013 (Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/559/eng@2026-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.