Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMilimani Chief Magistrate ELRC Cause E965 of 2020 (Appeal)· [2024] KEELRC 200 (KLR)

Kati v G4S Kenya Lmited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E219 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 200 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 February 2024
3,509 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed G4S fairly dismissed a cashier over a robbery confession, so his compensation claim failed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant, a cashier with the Respondent security company, was summarily dismissed on 4th November 2019 on grounds that he aided and abetted a robbery in which the Respondent's staff lost about Kshs 74.48 million. His claim before the Chief Magistrate's Court at Milimani for a declaration of unlawful dismissal, terminal dues and Kshs 905,853 in damages was dismissed on 14th November 2022, with each party bearing its own costs. On appeal, the ELRC reconsidered the evidence afresh as a first appeal. The Court applied Section 43 and 45 of the Employment Act and the Court of Appeal's standard-of-proof holding in Kenya Revenue Authority v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi, finding the employer only needed to prove reasons it genuinely believed to exist on a balance of probability. The Appellant's confession to police that he was promised Kshs 500,000 by the robbers for intelligence undermined the trust essential to his role as cashier. His allegation that the confession was procured by torture was unsupported, the referenced medical report being absent from the record. On procedure, the Court found the disciplinary enquiry complied with Section 41 of the Act: he received notice of the allegations, was heard, and was accompanied by a representative. The gratuity claim failed because the Protective Security Services Order does not cover cashiers and bars gratuity for lawful summary dismissal. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Valid and fair reason for termination

Holding

The Respondent proved a valid and fair reason; the Appellant's confession regarding involvement in the robbery destroyed the trust required of a cashier

Reasoning

Section 43(1) and 45(2)(a) of the Employment Act place the burden on the employer to prove reasons for termination. Applying the balance-of-probability standard and the McKinley test on dishonesty, the Court found it more than probable that the Respondent genuinely believed it could no longer trust the Appellant as its cashier following his confession to police, which went to the root of the employment relationship.

p. 6
02

Procedural fairness of the termination

Holding

The termination complied with Section 41 of the Employment Act; the Appellant was notified of the allegations and given a hearing with representation

Reasoning

The Appellant was suspended on 24th October 2019 and issued a Notice of Disciplinary Enquiry stating the allegations and his rights. At the hearing on 29th October 2019 he was accompanied by a representative, allowed to state his case, mitigate, and call and question witnesses. He did not dispute the minutes of the hearing at trial.

p. 7
03

Alleged duress/torture behind the confession

Holding

The Appellant failed to substantiate the torture allegation; the medical evidence relied on did not disclose the nature of illness

Reasoning

The Appellant claimed his confession was procured by police torture but had no evidence of torture; the medical report he referenced was not on record, and the sick sheets exhibited did not disclose the nature of his illness, so they did not corroborate the torture claim.

p. 5
04

Entitlement to gratuity

Holding

The gratuity claim fails because the Appellant was a cashier, outside the scope of the Protective Security Services Order, and had been summarily dismissed for lawful cause

Reasoning

Regulation 17 of Legal Notice No. 24 of 1998 applies only to security guards, investigators and escorts of valuables. A cashier falls outside these categories, and Regulation 17(2) bars gratuity to employees summarily dismissed for lawful cause.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • The standard of proof in employment termination cases is on a balance of probability, and the employer need only prove reasons it genuinely believed to exist
  • Dishonesty justifying dismissal is assessed by whether it leads to a breakdown of the employment relationship, particularly where trust is essential

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal fails and is dismissed in its entirety
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Milimani (ELRC)
ELRC Cause E965 of 2020
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal from the Chief Magistrate's Court under the Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kati v G4S Kenya Lmited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E219 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 200 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Milimani Chief Magistrate ELRC Cause E965 of 2020 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/200/eng@2024-02-09

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.