Simon Mulo Odipo v Nairobi Women’s Hospital [2022] KEELRC 872 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled the hospital fairly fired a stores manager for poor performance, but illegally rushed the process, awarding him over Kshs. 230,000.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
Procedure was flawed; the time given to respond to the show-cause letter and prepare for the hearing was unreasonably short, and the unexplained non-determination of the appeal compounded the unfairness.
The Claimant was required to respond to multiple accusations within hours on 21st March 2016 and invited to a hearing on 23rd March with short notice. The Court held urgency does not excuse an employer from affording a reasonable facility to conduct a defence. The Respondent also failed to hear the Claimant's appeal, wrongly treating the filing of the court claim as dissolving it.
Validity of reason under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
The Respondent established valid reasons: the Claimant's negligence over 100 stale chickens, delay in generating GRNs, poor store hygiene, and prior warnings, counselling, PIP and transfers.
As Stores-in-Charge, the Claimant was responsible for stock receipt and storage, yet the alarm over stale chickens was raised by the Chief Chef rather than the store. He offered no explanation for the GRN delays and had previously been warned for poor performance. The hospital context raised the expected standards of hygiene, placing patients and staff at risk if contaminated chickens were served.
Remedies for procedurally unfair termination
The Claimant was awarded 4 months' salary as compensation, notice pay, salary for 13 days worked, and accrued leave days; other prayers failed for want of evidence.
Balancing the flawed procedure against the Claimant's contribution to the termination - approximately 5 years' service, warning letters and continued poor performance - the Court granted compensation equivalent to 4 months' salary, together with notice pay, 13 days' salary and 4 days' leave conceded by the Respondent.
Legal principles established
#- A rushed hearing cannot amount to a fair hearing; an employer must give an employee reasonable time to respond to a show-cause letter and prepare for a disciplinary hearing, regardless of claimed urgency.
- An employer remains bound to hear and determine an internal appeal despite the employee filing a claim in court.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that termination was flawed on procedure, but well-founded on justification
- 2.Respondent to pay equivalent of 4 months' salary in compensation for unfair termination at Kshs. 163,000
- 3.Respondent to pay notice pay at Kshs. 40,950
- 4.Respondent to pay 13 days' salary at Kshs. 20,475
- 5.Respondent to pay 4 days of annual leave at Kshs. 6,300 - total Kshs. 230,725
- 6.No order on the costs
- 7.Interest allowed at court rates from the date of Judgment till payment is made in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, Sections 41, 43 and 45
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Warren Enterprises Ltd v Oyido[2026] KEELRC 2484 (KLR)22 Sept 2026followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Simon Mulo Odipo v Nairobi Women’s Hospital [2022] KEELRC 872 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No. 381 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/872/eng@2022-02-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.