Mweu v G4S Kenya Limited (Cause 298 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 1514 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An employer who resumes an employee's duties mid-investigation cannot later dismiss them for the same allegations—Kenya's Employment Court awarded over Kshs 1.1 million in compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the disciplinary procedure leading to summary dismissal was fair
The procedure was unfair; lifting the suspension while investigations were incomplete amounted to unfair labour practice
The respondent repeatedly adjourned the disciplinary hearings, lifted the suspension and recalled the claimant to work by letter dated 06.10.2017 before finalising investigations, suggesting he had been found not culpable. The court found the resumption of charges incoherent and unfair, and that the notice for the 10.11.2017 hearing did not cure the unfair procedure, contrary to section 45 of the Employment Act.
Whether the reasons for the summary dismissal were valid and fair under section 43
The reasons were not established as existing and genuine at the time of dismissal
The investigation of the altered dog-medication receipt was incomplete - RW1 admitted he never confirmed the receipt was genuine nor interviewed the pharmacy. On the Kshs 25,000 receipts, RW1 never visited the bus company, citing security in Dadaab. The claimant's explanations were credible, so the respondent failed to prove the alleged forgery and misappropriation existed at dismissal.
Whether reinstatement remained available
Reinstatement was time-barred; monetary compensation of 9 months' salary plus one month's notice pay awarded instead
Three years had lapsed since the November 2017 dismissal, exceeding the statutory window in section 12(3)(vii). The court weighed the claimant's long clean service and the aggravating factor that he was punished despite the panel's earlier doubts and the lifting of suspension, and awarded 9 months' salaries plus one month in lieu of notice, totalling Kshs 1,126,657.50.
Legal principles established
#- Lifting a suspension without finalising investigations and without finding the employee culpable renders subsequent dismissal procedure unfair
- An employer must establish, as at the date of dismissal, that the reasons for termination existed and were genuine
- Reinstatement is not available more than 3 years after termination
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the summary dismissal was unprocedural, unfair and unlawful and an unfair labour practice
- 2.Respondent to pay the claimant Kshs 1,126,657.50 (less PAYE) by 01.08.2022, failing which interest at court rates from date of judgment until full payment
- 3.Respondent to pay the claimant's costs of the suit
- 4.Prayer for reinstatement declared time barred and not available
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, section 45 and section 12(3)(vii)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mweu v G4S Kenya Limited (Cause 298 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 1514 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1514/eng@2023-06-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.