Michael Homas Opondo Were v Maths Trading Company Limited [2016] KEELRC 1728 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was substantively justified under section 44 of the Employment Act
There were reasonable and sufficient grounds to suspect the Claimant's involvement in a criminal offence against the employer's property, satisfying the substantive test for summary dismissal under section 44(4)(g).
The Claimant was arrested and charged with obtaining goods by false pretences arising from loss of company property. Section 44(4)(g) permits summary dismissal where an employee commits or on reasonable and sufficient grounds is suspected of having committed a criminal offence against or to the substantial detriment of the employer's property. The court found substantive grounds existed, hence no unexpired-term compensation.
Whether the summary dismissal was procedurally fair under section 41 of the Employment Act
The dismissal was procedurally flawed: the Claimant was not given a fair hearing, was not afforded the chance to have another employee present, and the internal investigations said to justify dismissal were not documented or produced.
Section 41(2) requires an employer to hear and consider an employee's representations before summary dismissal. The claimed meeting between the Claimant and Vellakkottu had no minutes or records, and no investigation report was produced. The court preferred the Claimant's word because the employer failed to keep records. The dismissal was therefore unfair under section 45.
Whether the Claimant bore responsibility for the loss given the Respondent's internal checks and balances
Confirming payment and approving release of goods was the duty of senior officers, not the Claimant; the Claimant acted under supervision and upon approvals.
Evidence established that before goods could be released there was a paper trail from the sales team, and the finance office and senior managers had to verify bank deposits and approve release. Confirming payment was beyond the Claimant's level; due diligence lay with the Respondent's senior officers and managers.
Legal principles established
#- An employer may not summarily dismiss an employee, even with justifiable reason, without adhering to the procedural safeguards of section 41 of the Employment Act, including a hearing and the opportunity to be accompanied by another employee; failure to document investigations and hearings is fatal to the employer's case.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant for compensation of Kshs.30,000.00; notice pay of Kshs.30,000.00; leave accrued of Kshs.30,000; and Kshs.20,000.00 for 20 days worked in June 2014
- 2.The payments to be drawn from the Kshs.104,684.00 deposited with the Labour Officer by the respondent
- 3.Each party to meet its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act (first-instance employment cause)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (4)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Njunge v Safaricom PLC (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E103 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 287 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 287 (KLR)5 Feb 2025
- Phares Oluoch Olang’o v Mastermind Tobacco (K) Limited [2020] KEELRC 1571 (KLR)[2020] KEELRC 1571 (KLR)10 Feb 2020
- Phares Oluoch Olang’o v Mastermind Tobacco (K) Limited [2020] KEELRC 1571 (KLR)[2020] KEELRC 1571 (KLR)10 Feb 2020
- Union of Kenya Civil Servants v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Tourism & 3 others [2016] KEELRC 4 (KLR)[2016] KEELRC 4 (KLR)3 Nov 2016
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Michael Homas Opondo Were v Maths Trading Company Limited [2016] KEELRC 1728 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 1449 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1728/eng@2016-01-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.