Sokoro & another v Kenya Wildlife Service (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1470 & 1471 of 2018 (Consolidated)) [2023] KEELRC 954 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld KWS's firings of two finance officers, ruling valid reasons justified termination, but ordered payment of notice, leave and pension benefits.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity and fairness of reasons for termination (sections 43 and 45, Employment Act)
Some of the stated reasons (unprocedural imprest, irregular switching-off of Safari Card System, irregular withdrawal of endowment funds) were valid and fair; the accounts preparation allegation and the PEBP allegation against the 2nd claimant were not established
The court assessed each allegation against the evidence. It rejected the claimants' claim of ignorance of the imprest circular given their senior ranks, found on a balance of probability that they failed to carry out the DG's instructions on the Safari Card System, and accepted that the endowment funds withdrawal was unapproved. However, the financial accounts allegation was exculpated by the disciplinary panel and the PEBP allegation was not in the show cause letter, so neither could found a fair reason.
Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
The process was substantially fair; interdiction required no prior notice, appeal required no oral hearing, and the board's overlapping involvement, though procedurally unfair, did not disentitle the respondent given valid reasons
The court accepted that interdiction under the Human Capital Policy Manual is a preliminary step not requiring due process; panels substantially complied with section 69(4)(c) of the Public Service Commission Act; defects in panel composition were condoned; and no basis for viva voce appeal hearings was established. The board members' premature and overlapping involvement was found procedurally unfair and predetermined but did not attract compensation because the reasons were valid and fair — it instead mitigated costs.
Remedies
Only terminal benefits admitted in the termination letters were awarded; all other prayers declined
With valid and fair reasons established, no declaration, setting aside, reinstatement, compensatory damages, constitutional damages or service gratuity was warranted. Reinstatement was also time-barred under section 12(3)(vii) of the ELRC Act. The respondent having admitted entitlement to notice pay, unutilised leave and pension benefits, the court ordered those payments subject to formal clearance, with interest if unpaid by June 2, 2023, and each party bearing own costs.
Legal principles established
#- Interdiction is a preliminary inquiry paving way for investigations; rules of natural justice do not apply at that stage so no prior notice is required
- It is sufficient for the validity of a termination that even only one of the stated reasons is shown to have existed
- A disciplinary panel's recommendation is not binding; the sanction imposed depends on the decision maker's discretion, which the court will not interfere with unless disproportionate or manifestly unfair
- Failure to object to the composition of a disciplinary panel at the hearing condones or acquiesces in any defect in its composition
Court orders
#- 1.Subject to formal clearance, the respondent to comply and pay the claimants per the terms of the letter of termination: (i) 2-months' payment in lieu of notice – 1st Claimant Kshs 503,016.00 and 2nd Claimant Kshs 744,680.00; (ii) payment of unutilised leave days as at February 23, 2018; (iii) payment of benefits under KWS Staff Superannuation scheme as per the Scheme Rules and the Retirement Benefits Act or Regulations
- 2.The clearance to be concluded in 7 days and the amount due paid by June 2, 2023, failing interest at court rates from the date of filing the suit till full payment
- 3.Each party to bear own costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act No 20 of 2011 (original employment jurisdiction); Employment Act, 2007 sections 41, 43, 45, 47, 49
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sokoro & another v Kenya Wildlife Service (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1470 & 1471 of 2018 (Consolidated)) [2023] KEELRC 954 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Consolidated suits (memorandums of claims filed October 25, 2018) – Employment and Labour Relations Court. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/954/eng@2023-04-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.