Evans Bosire Mayaka v G4S Kenya Limited [2022] KEELRC 258 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld the dismissal of a driver over an unexplained cash shortfall, ruling the employer followed a fair process and had genuine grounds.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was procedurally fair
The dismissal was procedurally fair: the Claimant was informed of the allegations, served with a notice of disciplinary hearing, heard, and his representations were considered before dismissal.
The suspension letter of 24 December 2015 clearly stated the accusation (a Kshs. 500,000 shortfall after the ATM replenishment) and attached the disciplinary hearing notice, which the Claimant acknowledged. The hearing was on 6 January 2016, adequate time for preparation. The minutes, signed by the Claimant, recorded his responses. The three components of fair process - information, hearing and consideration - were all present, so the plea of procedural unfairness, vaguely pleaded, failed.
Whether the summary dismissal was substantively fair
The dismissal was substantively justified under sections 43 and 44(3) of the Employment Act; the Respondent genuinely believed the crew's negligence caused the unexplained loss of Kshs. 500,000.
Uncontested facts showed the Claimant's crew loaded Kshs. 7,000,000 into the KCB Langata ATM, no other crew replenished it in the interim, no machine fault was found, and reconciliation revealed a Kshs. 500,000 deficit that was never accounted for. The Claimant admitted assisting in the loading. Applying the range of reasonable responses test, the court found the Respondent genuinely believed the reasons existed and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses, the conduct being so grave as to go to the root of the employment relationship.
Whether the Claimant was a lead or chase car driver and whether that mattered
The Claimant's testimony that he was a chase car driver was contradicted by his own admission that he assisted in loading the money after administering the combinations; he was actively engaged in the task.
Although the parties took opposite positions on whether the Claimant drove the lead or chase car, and the Respondent's witness was inconsistent, the court relied on the Claimant's own admission in cross-examination that he had a combination to the ATM and assisted in loading. His active involvement in the replenishment meant his role sufficed to ground the employer's belief in negligence, irrespective of which vehicle he drove.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination to pass the fairness test there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness
- The reason for termination is what the employer genuinely believed to exist at the time of termination
- An employee's misconduct does not inherently justify summary dismissal unless it is so grave that it intimates abandonment of the employment relationship
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's suit is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (unfair summary dismissal claim; sections 41, 43, 44 and 45 invoked)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Evans Bosire Mayaka v G4S Kenya Limited [2022] KEELRC 258 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/258/eng@2022-03-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.