Odhiambo v Beta Healthcare International Limited (Cause 1667 of 2016) [2023] KEELRC 1586 (KLR)

The Respondent asserted in its pleadings and through its HR Manager that Section 44 of the Employment Act entitled it to summarily dismiss without a hearing. The Court held this was a misapprehension: Section 44 defines summary dismissal as dismissal without notice, not without a hearing, and Section 41 mandatorily requires explanation of reasons and consideration of representations. Since no hearing was conducted, the termination breached Sections 41 and 45.

The multiple accusations - lateness, absence, misuse of the company car, faded receipts, failure to obtain police clearance, lack of team spirit - were never reduced to specific offences through show-cause letters or a disciplinary hearing. Most had been handled by warnings; some (like the car used daily to Syokimau with monthly deduction, and the pending police clearance) were not valid grounds at all. Incompatibility claims required evidence the Respondent never led.

The e-mail, published on the Respondent's global website, went beyond announcing the Claimant's departure, warning staff against fraud and lack of integrity, so that any reasonable reader would conclude the Claimant was dismissed as a fraudster. Relying on Court of Appeal authority, the Court affirmed jurisdiction over defamation flowing directly from termination. The Claimant proved falsity, wide publication, fault, and harm - he remained unemployable five years later.