Samuel Kigima Kamau v Invesco Assurance Company Limited [2018] KEELRC 296 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled Invesco unfairly dismissed its branch manager because it never gave him a proper hearing or proved misconduct, awarding him over Kshs 1.7 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was procedurally fair under Section 41 of the Employment Act
The dismissal was procedurally unfair; the respondent gave no opportunity for representations and had no structured disciplinary procedure, and the claimant did not know to whom or through what forum to appeal.
The claimant was issued a show cause letter, responded within seven days, but before the seven days elapsed was sent an 'Addendum to Notice for Termination' suspending him. Section 41 requires the employer to explain reasons and hear representations in the presence of a colleague or union official. No such hearing occurred. The appeal route to 'management' was unclear given the dismissal letter came from the CEO and no disciplinary procedure existed.
Whether the respondent justified the grounds for termination under Sections 43, 45 and 47(5)
The respondent failed to discharge its burden of justifying the grounds; no specific allegations of impropriety were made and no evidence of investigation or culpability was adduced.
The show cause letter referred vaguely to loss of Kshs.3,802,220 through the claimant's 'acts of commission or omission' of a criminal nature, without specific allegations. The claimant's response explained reporting structures exonerating him of direct handling of funds. RW1 could not explain the variance between the alleged loss and the audit figure of Kshs.3,357,821. The dismissal was substantively unfair.
Entitlement to leave days claimed
The respondent failed to produce leave records as required by Sections 10(3)(a)(i) and 74(1)(f), so 35 leave days were awarded on the claimant's basic salary.
The employer bears the duty of keeping employment records including annual leave records sufficient to calculate entitlements precisely. RW1 admitted having no evidence the claimant went on leave, so the burden under Section 10(7) was not discharged.
Legal principles established
#- Fair dismissal requires both fair procedure under Section 41 and valid justification under Section 43 of the Employment Act.
- A show cause letter does not satisfy the mandatory hearing requirements of Section 41 of the Employment Act.
- It is insufficient for an employer merely to allege misconduct; internal investigations must verify the misconduct before termination.
Court orders
#- 1.Payment of Kshs.373,287 in lieu of three months' notice
- 2.Payment of withheld salary of Kshs.488,828.20 up to 26th February 2013
- 3.Payment for 35 leave days based on basic salary at Kshs.103,653.85
- 4.Compensation of six months' gross salary in the sum of Kshs.746,574
- 5.Respondent to pay claimant's costs of the suit
- 6.Interest on the decretal sum at court rates from the date of judgment
- 7.Respondent to issue a certificate of service to the claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Resort Kenya Ltd v Waithaka[2026] KECA 1781 (KLR)25 Sept 2026
- Peter Macharia Gakure & another v Amica Savings & Credit Limited [2019] KEELRC 1930 (KLR)[2019] KEELRC 1930 (KLR)26 Mar 2019
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Samuel Kigima Kamau v Invesco Assurance Company Limited [2018] KEELRC 296 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Memorandum of Claim dated 17th May 2013, filed 22nd May 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/296/eng@2018-11-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.