Kangethe v Bic East Africa Limited (Cause 772 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 2106 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a director's dismissal unlawful because the employer ignored a court order and pre-decided the outcome, awarding a year's salary plus dues.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Fairness of the disciplinary process conducted despite a subsisting Court Order deferring the hearing
The dismissal was unfair because the disciplinary hearing proceeded in the face of a Court Order and the process was premeditated
The court found the dismissal premeditated since final dues were calculated before the internal appeal was determined. Judicial notice was taken that the panel defied a Court Order deferring the hearing. Citing Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission, the court held that procedural fairness is decisive irrespective of the allegations against the employee.
Substantive validity of the reasons for termination
The court did not need to resolve this fully since the unfair process alone rendered the dismissal unlawful; it nonetheless awarded the statutory maximum compensation
The Respondent contended it had valid reasons grounded on a forensic investigation and genuine belief, citing the balance-of-probabilities standard. The court, however, grounded its finding of un lawfulness on the flawed process, invoking Anuro, and proceeded to assess reliefs under section 49 of the Employment Act.
Reliefs recoverable under section 49 of the Employment Act
Maximum compensation of 12 months granted; the claim for 36 months and pro rata bonus refused
The court held that section 49 limits the compensatory award to a maximum of 12 months' salary, refusing the 36-month claim. Pro rata bonus was refused as an unearned sum. Leave, notice pay, consultant miscalculation and outstanding benefits were proved and awarded, with interest and a section 51 certificate of service.
Legal principles established
#- If the disciplinary process is unfair, the dismissal will be deemed unfair and lawful regardless of the misconduct alleged
- Calculation of final dues before an appeal is determined evidences a premeditated dismissal
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the dismissal of the Claimant was unlawful
- 2.12 month's salary as compensation
- 3.21 days of leave not utilized
- 4.3 month's salary in lieu of notice
- 5.Unpaid amounts for the 20 days worked as a consultant – Kshs. 736,402.85
- 6.Outstanding benefits due for the period 1st January to 31st August 2019 – Kshs. 187,860/-
- 7.Interest at court rates on the sums in (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 8.A certificate of service strictly in terms of section 51 of the Employment Act
- 9.Costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (first-instance employment claim)
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.
- H Young & Co. (EA) Ltd v Kilungya (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E022 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2223 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2223 (KLR)23 Jul 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kangethe v Bic East Africa Limited (Cause 772 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 2106 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No 772 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2106/eng@2024-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.