Mulama v Cezam & Associates Limited (Cause 152 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 1173 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded an employee nearly Kshs. 3.9 million because his employer dismissed him without a proper hearing or valid reasons.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was procedurally and substantively unfair
The termination was unfair; the Claimant discharged his burden of proving unfair termination, and the Respondent, having adduced no evidence, failed to justify the grounds and procedure
The Claimant proved the termination occurred and established prima facie unfairness through unchallenged evidence: no notice to show cause, no disciplinary hearing. The burden then shifted to the Respondent under Sections 43, 45 and 41 to prove valid reasons and procedural fairness. The Respondent filed a Response but tendered no evidence, so the dismissal was summary, lacking both substantive justification and the mandatory Section 41 procedure. The 27th March 2018 meeting was not a disciplinary hearing.
Whether the 27th March 2018 meeting constituted a disciplinary hearing
It did not; a disciplinary hearing must be preceded by clear notification of the accusation and an express invitation to a hearing
The court held the meeting was merely a discussion of alleged anomalies in financial records. For a disciplinary hearing, the employee must receive a clear notification of the specific misconduct alleged and an express invitation to a disciplinary hearing, neither of which occurred here.
Whether reinstatement could be granted
No; the statutory three-year window under Section 12(3)(vii) of the ELRC Act had lapsed, over five years having passed since dismissal
Reinstatement is discretionary and statutorily limited to three years from dismissal. The Claimant was dismissed on 30th November 2018 and judgment came more than five years later. The court, however, observed obiter that the provision needs re-look, as it may diminish employees' rights where the delay is not of their making.
What compensation was due for unfair termination
Ten months' gross salary (Kshs. 3,893,000/-) under Section 49(1)(c), based on gross salary of Kshs. 389,300/-
The court considered the casual disregard for procedural and substantive fairness by the Respondent, the Claimant's legitimate expectation to serve to contract end, and his roughly 6 years and 10 months of service, awarding compensation capped at 10 months' gross salary, the salary figure being uncontroverted.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proving that an unfair termination occurred rests on the employee, while the burden of justifying the grounds for termination rests on the employer
- Where a Respondent files a Statement of Response but adduces no evidence at trial, the Statement of Response has no evidential value
- A valid termination requires both substantive justification and procedural fairness
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Claimant's dismissal was unfair and wrongful
- 2.The Claimant be paid compensation for unfair termination, tabulated at Kshs. 3,893,000/- (Kshs. 389,300/- x 10 months)
- 3.The Claimant be issued with a Certificate of Service within 30 days of the Judgment
- 4.Interest on the compensation at Court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 5.The Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Articles 162(2) of the Constitution (employment and labour relations jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mabatuk v Safaricom Plc (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E047 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2628 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2628 (KLR)26 Sept 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mulama v Cezam & Associates Limited (Cause 152 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 1173 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No 152 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1173/eng@2024-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.