Michael Oimo v ICEA Lion Lifeassurance Company Limited [2018] KEELRC 342 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled the dismissal was justified by evidence, but the employer's slow and unfair disciplinary process still cost it nearly Kshs. 2.8 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was substantively justified
Yes - the claimant substantially admitted the irregular mileage and fuel claims, giving the employer genuine grounds under section 43
The Court revisited the disciplinary hearing record and found the claimant substantially admitted fuelling his private car on need basis, writing some receipts himself, and presenting questionable claims. The respondent thus proved reasons it genuinely believed existed, satisfying sections 43 and 47(5) of the Employment Act, 2007. The reasonableness test from British Leyland (via Co-operative Bank of Kenya) supported the employer's view.
Whether the disciplinary procedure was fair
No - the unexplained delay from show-cause letter (29.08.2016) to dismissal (12.06.2017), failure to provide the audit report and claim forms, and non-determination of the appeal rendered the procedure unfair under section 45(2)(c)
Although the claimant was not on suspension, the prolonged unexplained delay subjected him to unreasonable anxiety and a painful dilemma. The audit report was never provided during the process, the claim forms were not attached to the receipts, and the administrative appeal was never determined, so the process failed the fairness standard of section 45(2)(c) despite purporting to comply with section 41.
Entitlement to remedies
One month's salary in lieu of notice plus 3 months' gross salary as compensation under section 49, less income tax; unpaid leave claim failed as unpleaded and unproved
The Court applied section 49 factors: the claimant desired to remain in employment; his admissions significantly contributed to termination; there was no clear policy on mileage reimbursement for private car use, and approval of claim forms was a mitigating factor per Grace Gacheri Murithi. Compensation of 3 months' gross salary met the ends of justice; leave days were liquidated damages not strictly proved.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must justify the grounds for termination under sections 43 and 47(5) of the Employment Act, and the reason is what the employer genuinely believed to exist
- Unexplained delay in concluding a disciplinary process, exposing the employee to prolonged anxiety, renders the procedure unfair under section 45(2)(c) of the Employment Act even if substantive grounds exist
- Failure by an employer to consider and determine an administrative appeal against dismissal contributes to procedural unfairness
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the termination was unfair for want of a fair procedure
- 2.The respondent to pay the claimant a sum of Kshs.2,798,116.00 by 31.12.2018 failing which interest to be payable at Court rates from the date of judgment till full payment
- 3.The respondent to pay the claimant's costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (unfair termination claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Michael Oimo v ICEA Lion Lifeassurance Company Limited [2018] KEELRC 342 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/342/eng@2018-12-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.