Muriuki v Kenyatta University (Cause 1550 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 864 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenyatta University's dismissal of a pharmacist was ruled unfair because it never produced the CCTV footage backing the theft allegations, costing it over Kshs 2.1 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the employer proved a valid and fair reason for summary dismissal on theft allegations
Termination was unfair as the respondent failed to prove the allegations to the requisite standard
The respondent's case rested entirely on CCTV footage that was never produced in court, and no evidence was given by the person who viewed the footage and prepared the investigation report. Without this crucial evidence, the allegations of drug theft remained bare assumptions, and the employer failed to discharge its burden under sections 43(1) and 45(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act.
Whether the claimant was accorded procedural fairness before dismissal
Procedural fairness was accorded; the respondent complied with section 41 of the Employment Act
The claimant was notified of the allegations in the suspension and invitation letters, given an opportunity to submit a written defence and appear before the Senior Board of Discipline, made verbal responses recorded in the proceedings, and had a right of appeal. The requirements set out in Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui were fulfilled.
Whether the claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought
Compensatory damages, notice pay, accrued leave and retirement benefits awarded; general damages and lost earnings to retirement declined
The court awarded eight months' gross salary as compensatory damages considering the length of employment, three months' notice pay under the Terms of Service, and accrued leave since the respondent failed to produce leave records under section 74(1)(f). General damages for reputation and future earnings to retirement were declined.
Legal principles established
#- The employer bears the burden of proving valid and fair reasons for termination under sections 43(1) and 45(2) of the Employment Act
- Failure to produce crucial evidence such as CCTV footage that forms the basis of disciplinary charges leaves allegations unproven
- Elements of procedural fairness under section 41 of the Employment Act as stated by the Court of Appeal
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the claimant against the respondent
- 2.Compensatory damages of Kshs 1,497,872.00 (8 months gross salary)
- 3.Three months' salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 561,702.00
- 4.Accrued leave days of Kshs 98,387.00
- 5.Total award of Kshs 2,157,961.00 with interest at court rates from date of judgment until payment in full
- 6.Benefits accrued under the respondent's Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme to the claimant
- 7.Certificate of service to issue within 30 days under Section 51(1) of the Employment Act
- 8.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the Employment Act and the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muriuki v Kenyatta University (Cause 1550 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 864 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi (Claim dated November 21, 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/864/eng@2023-04-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.