Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCauses Nos. 563, 564, 565 and 566 of 2019 (consolidated)· [2021] KEELRC 1369 (KLR)

Willy Rono & 3 others v L’oreal East Africa Limited [2021] KEELRC 1369 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
16 June 2021
NMNzioki Wa Makau
4,913 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~20 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court upheld four dismissals as fair, confirming that a properly documented disciplinary process protects employers.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Four employees of the Respondent — Willy Rono, Jackson Githaiga Ndiritu, Sammy Kilonzo Mbau and Johnson Kagiri — filed separate claims in August 2019, later consolidated, alleging that their summary dismissal on 10th May 2019 for gross misconduct (forged hotel receipts, irregular ETRs and misappropriated imprest) was unlawful, unprocedural and unfair under Section 45 of the Employment Act. They sought a declaration of unfair dismissal, terminal benefits, interest, costs, and (for three of them) a written apology for an allegedly defamatory email circulated to distributors. The Respondent defended the dismissals, averring an audit revealed forged receipts and ETRs, that the Claimants admitted the misconduct at their disciplinary hearings, that they were invited with the right to be accompanied by a witness, and that it notified customers of their departure without defamation. After hearing the four Claimants and Grace Mbiu (Internal Compliance Manager), the court held the terminations were procedurally fair: show cause letters were issued and answered, hearings were convened with notice of the right to accompaniment, and Section 41 does not permit a witness to answer questions for the employee, nor require line manager attendance. The court found the email not defamatory, no particulars having been pleaded, and found the Claimants were paid their dues. All four suits were dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Procedural fairness under Section 41 of the Employment Act

Holding

The Respondent complied with Section 41; show cause letters, responses, hearing invitations with the right to be accompanied, and written dismissal letters constituted fair procedure.

Reasoning

The court examined the show cause letters, responses, invitation letters allowing accompaniment by a witness, and the dismissal letters. It held the policy allowing line managers to be aware did not make them necessary attendees, and that a witness accompanying an employee need not answer questions. The process was therefore fair.

p. 4
02

Defamation claim

Holding

The email notifying distributors that the Claimants had left employment was not defamatory; no particulars were pleaded.

Reasoning

The court observed that despite seeking relief for defamation, no particulars were provided. Reading the alleged defamatory email, it found nothing defamatory in merely notifying customers that the employees had left employment after issues arose.

p. 4
03

Payment of terminal dues

Holding

Each Claimant received payment of final dues and none proved otherwise.

Reasoning

The termination letters indicated final dues would be paid. The court found each Claimant received payment and none proved non-payment, rejecting the claim for terminal benefits.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer who issues show cause letters, considers responses and grants a disciplinary hearing with notice of the right to be accompanied by a witness satisfies the procedural fairness requirements of Section 41 of the Employment Act; a line manager need not attend the hearing.
  • Section 41 of the Employment Act does not permit a witness to attend and answer questions on behalf of the employee.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Each of the four suits is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of each suit awarded to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act (Cap 226)Section 45
  • Employment Act 2007Section 41
  • Employment Act 2007Section 41(2)
  • Employment Act 2007Section 43
  • Employment Act 2007Section 43(2)
  • Employment Act 2007Section 44(3)
  • Employment Act 2007Section 45(2)(a)(ii)
  • Employment Act 2007Section 45(5)(a)
  • Employment Act 2007Section 47(5)

Cases cited (12)

  • Anthony Mkala Chitavi v Malindi Water & Sewerage Co. Ltd
    [2013] eKLR
  • Peter Kamau Mwaura & Another v National Bank of Kenya
    [2020] eKLR
  • Mary Mutanu Mwendwa v Ayuda
    [2013] eKLR
  • Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Meru North Farmers Sacco Limited
    [2013] eKLR
  • Ol Pejeta Ranching Limited v David Wanjau Muhoro
    [2017] eKLR
  • Judicial Service Commission v Gladys Boss Shollei
    [2014] eKLR
  • Pius Machafu Isindu v Lavington Security Guards Limited
    [2017] eKLR
  • D.K Njagi Marete v Teachers Service Commission
    [2013] eKLR, Industrial Cause No. 379 of 2009
  • Southern Highlands Tobacco v McQueen
    [1960] EA 490
  • David Otieno Qgada v Bidco Africa Limited
    [2020] eKLR
  • Bonface Simiyu Makoe v Kongoni River Farm (Star Division)
    [2020] eKLR
  • Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v Aggrey Lukorito Wasike
    [2017] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction under the Employment Act and the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Willy Rono & 3 others v L’oreal East Africa Limited [2021] KEELRC 1369 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Causes Nos. 563, 564, 565 and 566 of 2019 (consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1369/eng@2021-06-16

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