Samuel Odoyo Soth v G4s Kenya Limited [2020] KEELRC 600 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled G4S unfairly fired an employee because it had no real evidence against him, awarding him compensation plus notice pay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the dismissal was lawful and fair
The termination was unlawful and unfair because the employer presented no documentary evidence proving the accusations of fraudulent consignment of parcels.
The mode of exit by dismissal was not in dispute. The employer relied on unsigned reports by Martin Mwongera, who was not called as a witness, and the reports referenced attachments, including the crucial waybill, that were never availed to the court. The reports were therefore given nil probative value. With no documentary evidence backing the accusations, the charges were not proved to the Section 43 standard, rendering the dismissal substantively unfair.
Relationship between criminal process and internal disciplinary proceedings
The court declined to inquire into the Claimant's arrest and release, as there is no necessary nexus between internal disciplinary proceedings and a criminal process on the same facts.
The Respondent distanced itself from the police investigations that led to the Claimant's arrest and detention. Relying on Milkah Khakayi Kulati v Sandstorm (Africa) Limited, the court held that internal disciplinary processes stand independently of criminal proceedings arising from the same facts, and confined itself to examining the fairness and lawfulness of the employer's internal disciplinary process.
Entitlement to remedies
The Claimant was awarded six months' salary in compensation and one month's salary in lieu of notice, but the claim for terminal benefits failed for want of evidence.
In assessing compensation the court considered the Claimant's length of service and the Respondent's conduct in executing the dismissal. One month's salary in lieu of notice was awarded. However, no evidence was led to support the terminal benefits claim, which was dismissed. Interest at court rates was granted from the date of judgment.
Legal principles established
#- There is no necessary nexus between internal disciplinary proceedings and a criminal process on the same set of facts
- An employer must prove the accusations against an employee to the standard required by Section 43 of the Employment Act
- Unsigned reports of a maker not called as a witness, with attachments not availed, carry no probative value
Court orders
#- 1.Six (6) months' salary in compensation for unfair termination (Kshs. 65,472)
- 2.One (1) month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 10,912)
- 3.Total award of Kshs. 76,384 with interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 4.Claim for terminal benefits dismissed
- 5.Claimant awarded costs of the case
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over unfair termination claims under the Employment Act, 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Samuel Odoyo Soth v G4s Kenya Limited [2020] KEELRC 600 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Statement of Claim dated 30th September 2015, filed 7th October 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/600/eng@2020-07-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.