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 214 of 2016· [2021] KEELRC 2056 (KLR)

Emmanuel Owino Ogutu v G4s Security Services Kenya Ltd [2021] KEELRC 2056 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 March 2021
RSRadido Stephen
659 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court upheld G4S's dismissal of an employee who lost company cash and failed to report it, because the disciplinary process was fair.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a former employee of G4S Security Services Kenya Ltd, sued alleging unlawful termination of employment and claiming various reliefs including underpayment of wages, severance pay and wages from September 2015 to July 2016. The Claimant was suspended by letter dated 19 September 2015 over an allegation of intentional failure to hand over cash collection sheets and cash in good time. He made a written response, attended a disciplinary hearing on 30 September 2015, and was dismissed by letter dated 22 October 2015. The court held that procedural fairness was met, as the Respondent alerted the Claimant to the allegations and afforded him an opportunity to be heard as contemplated by sections 35(1) and 41 of the Employment Act, 2007. On substantive fairness, the Respondent discharged its burden under sections 43 and 45 by calling a witness and producing records. The Claimant had admitted losing Kshs 2,000/- which came into his possession through his duties and conceded he did not promptly report the loss, hoping a friend would lend him money to replace it. The court found that his duties demanded honesty and that the Respondent had valid and fair reasons to dismiss him. The claim for underpayment failed for want of evidence; severance pay was declined because the separation was not on account of redundancy; and the claim for wages from September 2015 to July 2016 failed for lack of evidence, the Respondent having produced a schedule showing all dues were paid up to separation, offset by outstanding liabilities yielding nil payment. The Cause was dismissed with costs to the Respondent. Judgment was delivered virtually by Radido Stephen, Judge, in Kisumu on 3 March 2021.

Key legal issues

#
01

Procedural fairness of the termination

Holding

Procedural fairness was met: the Claimant was suspended, informed of the allegations, given a right to be accompanied, made a written response, and was heard at a disciplinary hearing

Reasoning

The Respondent suspended the Claimant by letter dated 19 September 2015 with a Notice of Disciplinary Enquiry/Hearing, informed him of the allegation of intentional failure to hand over cash collection sheets and cash, and informed him of a right to be accompanied. He made a written response, attended a hearing on 30 September 2015, and was informed of dismissal by letter dated 22 October 2015. This satisfied sections 35(1) and 41 of the Employment Act.

p. 1
02

Substantive fairness of the termination

Holding

Valid and fair reasons existed: the Claimant lost Kshs 2,000/- that came into his possession through his duties and failed to report the loss promptly, contrary to the honesty his duties demanded

Reasoning

The Respondent discharged its burden under sections 43 and 45 by calling a witness and producing records. The Claimant admitted in writing during investigations that he lost Kshs 2,000/- which came into his possession because of his duties. At the hearing he conceded he did not promptly report the loss, hoping a friend would loan him money to replace it. His duties expected honesty and he failed to inform supervisors of the loss.

p. 2
03

Underpayment of wages

Holding

Relief declined for lack of evidence

Reasoning

The Claimant alleged he was underpaid throughout employment but led no evidence on whether the underpayments arose from payment below the prescribed gazetted minimum wage or contractually agreed rates. A party alleging underpayment must prove the applicable wage rates and demonstrate breach.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must alert an employee of the allegations and afford an opportunity to be heard, per sections 35(1) and 41 of the Employment Act, 2007
  • Under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007, the employer bears the burden of proving that reasons for dismissal are valid and fair
  • Severance pay is payable only where separation is on account of redundancy

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Cause is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007section 35(1)
  • Employment Act, 2007section 41
  • Employment Act, 2007section 43
  • Employment Act, 2007section 45
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (referral of an employment cause)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Emmanuel Owino Ogutu v G4s Security Services Kenya Ltd [2021] KEELRC 2056 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No 214 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2056/eng@2021-03-03

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