Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No 472 of 2014· [2017] KEELRC 1916 (KLR)

Daniel K. Gichuki v Nakumatt Holdings Limited [2017] KEELRC 1916 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 January 2017
LNLinnet Ndolo
1,275 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled Nakumatt unfairly fired an employee because the charges were vague and the process rushed, awarding him nearly Kshs. 840,000.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent from 14th August 1996 and last serving as an Accounts Assistant earning Kshs. 64,590 monthly, was sent on compulsory leave on 28th June 2013 following allegations of irregular payments in the Finance Department. He appeared before a Disciplinary Committee and his employment was terminated by letter dated 1st October 2013 on grounds of negligence and improper performance of duties. He sued for a declaration that the termination was unlawful, reinstatement or in the alternative compensation of twelve months' salary, one month's salary in lieu of notice, house allowance, damages for expected earnings to retirement, and costs. The Respondent, which did not attend the hearing, maintained in its Response that the Claimant had failed to verify fake invoices before authorising payments and that the termination was lawful and fair. The Court framed two issues: whether the termination was lawful and fair, and whether the Claimant was entitled to the remedies sought. Applying Sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act, the Court found that the exact charges were never particularised, that no investigation report was produced or supplied to the Claimant, and that the show cause letter was issued after the disciplinary hearing, making the process a box-ticking exercise. The termination was held substantively and procedurally unfair. The Court awarded twelve months' salary (Kshs. 775,080) and one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 64,590), totalling Kshs. 839,670 with interest from the date of judgment, but dismissed the claims for house allowance and expected earnings to age 60. The Claimant received costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent demonstrated a valid and fair reason for terminating the Claimant's employment under Section 43 of the Employment Act

Holding

The Respondent failed to discharge its burden; the charges were vague, no investigation report was produced, and the termination was substantively unfair

Reasoning

The Claimant was accused of complicity in processing fraudulent invoices, but the details of the invoices were never provided, leaving the exact charges in doubt. The Court characterized the Respondent's actions as a fishing expedition. Although investigations were alleged, no report was produced in evidence and the Claimant was never given a copy, so no valid reason was established under Section 43.

p. 3
02

Whether the disciplinary process complied with Section 41 of the Employment Act

Holding

The process was a mechanical box-ticking exercise that failed the Section 41 threshold, evidenced by the show cause letter being issued after the disciplinary hearing

Reasoning

Citing Rebecca Ann Maina, the Court held that an employee must be notified of the exact charges, given sufficient time to respond, and granted access to relevant documents. None of this occurred: the charges were imprecise, the investigation report was withheld, and the show cause letter post-dated the hearing, rendering the procedure procedurally unfair.

p. 3
03

What remedies flow from the unfair termination

Holding

Twelve months' salary in compensation and one month's salary in lieu of notice were awarded; house allowance and expected earnings to retirement were dismissed

Reasoning

In assessing compensation the Court considered the Claimant's length of service and the Respondent's conduct in the termination. The pay slip showed the salary already included a housing component, defeating the house allowance claim, and damages for expected earnings to age 60 lack a legal basis.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The burden on an employer under Section 43 of the Employment Act is to establish a reason that would cause a reasonable employer to terminate employment
  • An employee facing disciplinary action is entitled to notice of the exact nature of the charges, sufficient time to respond and access to relevant documents

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant for 12 months' salary in compensation of Kshs. 775,080
  2. 2.One month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 64,590
  3. 3.Total award of Kshs. 839,670 with interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
  4. 4.Claimant awarded the costs of the case

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Section 43
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 41

Cases cited (2)

  • Paul Waigiri Muriuki v Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company Ltd
    [2015] eKLR
  • Rebecca Ann Maina and 2 Others v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (Sections 41 and 43 applied)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Daniel K. Gichuki v Nakumatt Holdings Limited [2017] KEELRC 1916 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Cause No 472 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/1916/eng@2017-01-27

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.