Riungu v Geothermal Development Company (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E043 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 3 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out an employee's dismissal because the employer kept changing its reasons during the disciplinary process, awarding her 12 months' salary.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the reason for dismissal was valid and fair under section 45(2) of the Employment Act
The dismissal was unjustified: the reason shifted from failure to safeguard property (show cause letter), to theft (disciplinary hearing), to authorizing gate passes (dismissal letter), and the respondent's own witnesses exonerated the claimant of authorizing the gate passes
The court traced the accusation through three inconsistent stages: the show cause letter alleged failure to safeguard company property; the disciplinary committee heard charges of theft under the HR Policy; the dismissal letter cited authorization of gate passes. RW-1 confirmed the gate passes were authorized by Panita Nafula and Jeremy Rono, not the claimant, and that the materials were sold by Samuel Maina. The shifting grounds rendered the reason invalid and unfair under section 45(2).
Whether fair procedure under section 41 of the Employment Act was followed
Although the claimant was heard, the process was flawed because new allegations were introduced at the hearing and in the dismissal letter, denying her a fair hearing
The claimant was given a show cause notice, responded, attended a disciplinary hearing and appealed, so the formal steps in section 41 were taken. However, the substance of fair procedure requires notice of the specific allegations with sufficient detail and time to respond. Introducing theft charges at the hearing and a different reason in the dismissal letter fell below the irreducible minimum of notice and hearing set out in the Court of Appeal authorities relied upon.
Whether the claimant was entitled to remedies
The claimant was awarded 12 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination, one month's salary in lieu of notice, terminal dues, costs and interest
Having found the dismissal unfair and void, the court awarded the maximum compensation of 12 months' gross salary (Kshs 1,601,668.32), one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs 133,472.36), subject to statutory deductions, plus terminal dues, costs and interest at court rates from the date of judgment.
Legal principles established
#- It is a denial of the right to a fair hearing for an employer to introduce new matters at the disciplinary hearing or in the termination letter that were not in the notice to show cause
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the dismissal of the claimant was disproportionate, unfair, lacked valid reasons and is therefore null and void
- 2.Compensation equivalent to 12 months' salary (12 x 133,472.36 = 1,601,668.32)
- 3.One month's salary in lieu of notice (133,472.36)
- 4.Terminal dues
- 5.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over unfair termination claims under the Employment Act, 2007 (ss. 41, 43, 44, 45, 47(5) applied)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Riungu v Geothermal Development Company (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E043 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 3 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Employment claim dated 18th November 2022, amended 12th June 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/3/eng@2024-01-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.