Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v KK Security Limited (Cause E045 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 2770 (KLR)

The grievant received a show cause letter on 10th January 2021, an invitation to a disciplinary hearing on 11th January 2021, and a dismissal letter on 13th January 2021. The Respondent did not controvert this chronology. Even though the grievant was a union official familiar with disciplinary procedures and did not complain about the process at the hearing, the employer was still bound by the constitutional and statutory requirements of procedural fairness. Insufficient preparation time rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair.

Once procedural unfairness was established, the burden shifted to the employer to justify the dismissal under Sections 43, 45 and 47(5) of the Employment Act. Applying the reasonable employer test from British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift and the holding in George Okello Munyolo v Unilever Kenya Limited, the employer needed only reasonable and sufficient grounds, not conclusive proof. The grievant's sole duty was safeguarding the client's premises; leaving the gate open and failing to respond to the alarm were to the employer's detriment.

The Respondent produced no proof of payment in lieu of notice, so the claim was allowed as prayed. Gratuity fails because it was not provided in the contract and is not a statutory entitlement. Salary was allowed only for the 12 days actually worked in January 2021, there being no evidence of payment. Because the dismissal was unfair only on procedure and the grievant had prior warning letters, maximum compensation was inappropriate; two months' salary was deemed sufficient under Sections 49 and 50.