Oanda v Kenya Airways (Cause 2517 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 520 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled Kenya Airways unfairly fired its supply chain head after refusing to share the audit report his dismissal was based on, awarding Kshs. 12.35 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent established a valid reason for termination under Section 43 of the Employment Act
No valid reason was established; the charges were institutional lapses involving many actors, not misconduct attributable to the Claimant individually
The Claimant's testimony that jet fuel decisions were made by a committee, that record-keeping was not his role, and that contract extensions were approved by senior management was corroborated by the Respondent's own witnesses. The show cause notice read like an audit management letter. The court applied the range of reasonable responses test but found the Respondent failed the Section 43 threshold.
Whether the disciplinary procedure complied with Section 41 of the Employment Act
Procedural fairness was compromised because the Respondent refused to avail the full Deloitte Forensic Audit Report on which all charges were based
All charges originated from the Deloitte report, which was crucial to preparing a defence. The Claimant requested the report and an extension of time; the extension was granted but the report was withheld, with only excerpts issued. The report was never produced in court. The court found the case on all fours with Lawrence Lien Shoona and applied Rebecca Ann Maina on the employee's entitlement to documents.
Whether reinstatement was an appropriate remedy
Reinstatement was declined due to time lapse after separation; compensation of 10 months' salary was awarded instead
The court considered the Claimant's length of service (about 8 years), his non-contribution to the termination, his senior position with a high-profile employer making equivalent re-employment unlikely, and that he was jobless at the time of testimony.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must avail to an employee the audit or investigative report relied upon to discipline the employee; failure to do so compromises the procedural fairness required under Section 41 of the Employment Act
- The employer bears the burden of establishing a valid reason for termination under Section 43 of the Employment Act, assessed through the range of reasonable responses test
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment was substantively and procedurally unfair (implied by finding and award)
- 2.Award of 10 months' salary in compensation for unfair termination, Kshs. 9,500,000
- 3.Award of 3 months' salary in lieu of notice, Kshs. 2,850,000
- 4.Total judgment of Kshs. 12,350,000 subject to statutory deductions and interest at court rates from date of judgment until payment in full
- 5.Claimant awarded costs of the case
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act; claim for unfair termination)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Oanda v Kenya Airways (Cause 2517 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 520 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No 2517 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/520/eng@2024-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.