Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2019] KEELRC 236 (KLR)

Nurwin Fozia Rajab v Nzoia Sugar Company Limited [2019] KEELRC 236 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
4 December 2019
MNMathews N. Nduma
1,873 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that lying on a CV about a past job title justified termination, even though the employer delayed acting on it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant was employed by the respondent on 25 October 2011 as Purchasing Manager and confirmed on 5 June 2012. In 2013 the Managing Director issued a show cause letter alleging that the claimant had misrepresented her employment history at Moi University, describing herself in her CV as a Senior Assistant Procurement Officer from 2005 to 2011 when she had in fact served as a Public Relations Assistant performing administrative duties. A reference letter from Moi University dated 22 November 2011 had disclosed the true position shortly after her appointment. The claimant was suspended on half pay in May 2013 and her employment was terminated on 28 February 2014 by decision of a partially constituted Board. She sought a declaration that the termination was unconstitutional, unlawful and unfair, reinstatement, or in the alternative maximum compensation and withheld benefits. The respondent maintained the termination was for lack of integrity arising from the misrepresentation. The court framed two issues: whether the termination was for a valid reason with fair procedure, and whether the claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought. The court found the CV misrepresentation was fraudulent and weighed in her selection, constituting a valid reason; that the written opportunity to respond sufficed as a fair hearing given the self-explanatory documentary evidence; and that the Board's partial constitution did not vitiate the process in the prevailing circumstances. However, the court found the respondent had slept on its rights by raising the issue two years after receiving the reference letter, causing the claimant prejudice. The suit was dismissed in all respects, with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the reason for termination

Holding

The claimant's fraudulent misrepresentation of her position at Moi University was a valid reason for suspension and termination

Reasoning

The claimant's CV depicted her as Senior Assistant Procurement Officer from 2005 to 2011 when she had actually been a Public Relations Assistant. The reference letter from Moi University disclosed this truth, and the misrepresentation weighed in her selection for the procurement post, gravely denting her integrity and rendering the employment relationship untenable.

p. 3
02

Fairness of the procedure followed

Holding

The written opportunity to respond to the show cause letter sufficed as a fair hearing notwithstanding the Board not being fully constituted

Reasoning

The claimant was given an opportunity to explain in writing; the documentary evidence spoke for itself. The Managing Director and the two gazetted Board members considered the matter and made recommendations in the prevailing circumstances, satisfying procedural fairness.

p. 3
03

Delay by the employer in raising the misrepresentation

Holding

The respondent delayed unreasonably, causing prejudice to the claimant, but this did not invalidate the termination; it informed the costs order

Reasoning

The reference letter revealing the true work history reached the respondent in November 2011, yet the show cause letter issued only in 2013, over two years after appointment. The court found the respondent had slept on its rights and the claimant suffered prejudice, but held the misrepresentation remained a valid ground regardless of the passage of time.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Misrepresentation of work history in a job application is a valid reason for termination of employment
  • An opportunity to explain in writing can constitute a fair hearing where documentary evidence speaks for itself

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is dismissed in all respects
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations jurisdiction (original claim under the Employment and Labour Relations Court; specific enabling article not cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nurwin Fozia Rajab v Nzoia Sugar Company Limited [2019] KEELRC 236 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/236/eng@2019-12-04

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