Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 261 of 2018· [2019] KEELRC 2609 (KLR)

Nicholas Kiplagat Kimechwa v Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd [2019] KEELRC 2609 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret
14 November 2019
ANAbuodha Jorum Nelson
1,649 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 upheld Kenya Pipeline's dismissal of a security guard, ruling both the reason and the disciplinary process were fair.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent from 31 March 1995 as a security guard and later promoted to Security Guard 1, earning Kshs 127,366/25 at termination, claimed unfair termination. He was suspended on 24 July 2015 pending investigation into an incident of 10 July 2015 in which a truck belonging to East African Oil (EAGOL) was released from the respondent's Eldoret depot using a gate pass belonging to Tosha Petroleum. He was interviewed, issued a show cause letter to which he responded, appeared before the staff disciplinary committee on 23-25 November 2015 accompanied by a union official, and was dismissed by letter. He complained that particulars of the theft allegations were not supplied and the investigation report was withheld; the respondent maintained due procedure was followed and terminal dues were paid. The court framed two questions: whether there were valid and fair reasons for termination, and whether fair procedure was followed. It held that it must not overanalyze the employer's reasons or substitute its own view. The claimant, who was in charge of documentation, conceded in his response that he knew an illegality had occurred but failed to explain what steps he took to prevent it, blaming unnamed colleagues. Others in the chain were also disciplined. The court found a valid reason existed and the procedure was fair under the Employment Act, and dismissed the claim with costs on 14 November 2019.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity and fairness of the reason for termination

Holding

There was a valid reason - the claimant, in charge of documentation, conceded he knew an illegality occurred with the gate pass and did not exculpate himself

Reasoning

The claimant was in charge of gate documentation and had to compare and counter-sign records. A truck was released using another company's gate pass. The claimant conceded in his show-cause response that he knew an illegality had taken place, but blamed unnamed colleagues at the exit and never explained what steps he took to prevent it. The disciplinary committee also disciplined others in the chain, showing the seriousness of the breach. The court held it should not overanalyze the employer's reasons and substitute its own view.

p. 2
02

Fairness of the termination procedure

Holding

The procedure was fair - the claimant was suspended, given a show cause letter, responded, appeared before the disciplinary committee accompanied by a union official, and appealed

Reasoning

The claimant was notified of the allegations through the suspension letter, show cause letter and invitation to the disciplinary committee, which repeated the charges and informed him he could be accompanied by a union official or colleague. He responded to the show cause letter and attended the hearing with union representation. The respondent's witness confirmed due procedure was followed. The court was satisfied the process met the requirements of the Employment Act.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • In an unfair termination claim the court asks whether there were valid and fair reasons a reasonable employer would consider termination proportionate, and whether a fair process was followed; it does not substitute its own view for that of management
  • Fair process requires that an employee be notified of the allegations and given an opportunity to respond and call evidence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over a claim for unfair termination (Employment Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nicholas Kiplagat Kimechwa v Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd [2019] KEELRC 2609 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No 261 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2609/eng@2019-11-14

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