Omondi v Technical University of Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 589 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2421 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a university unfairly sacked a lecturer by ambush-rescheduling his disciplinary hearing and relying on vague charges, awarding him substantial compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was procedurally fair under Section 41 of the Employment Act
The termination was procedurally unfair because the hearing was brought forward from 9th October 2018 to 8th October 2018 without prior notification, depriving the Claimant of adequate preparation time and his documents
The Court held that preparation is integral to the hearing phase under Section 41. The Claimant protested he was unprepared, had left his documents at home expecting the 9th October hearing, and had no representative ready. The Respondent's explanation for rescheduling was found arbitrary and unsubstantiated, and the evidence was not rebutted. No bigger prejudice can be occasioned than depriving an employee of reliance on documents necessary for his defence.
Whether the termination was substantively justified under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
The termination was substantively unfair: the charge was too general, and the Respondent failed to prove the Claimant received results from tutors and failed to release them
The charge in the invitation letter was general, allowing the Respondent to wander into matters of almost a decade, which the Claimant could not answer without records. The memos tendered were addressed to all tutors, not the Claimant specifically. The Respondent's witness had no document showing the Claimant received transmitted results but failed to release them; the Claimant's position that other tutors' defaults were being visited on him was unchallenged.
The appropriate standard and test for substantive justification
The Court expressed reservations about the reasonableness ('band of reasonable responses') test, viewing it as not wholly aligned with Kenya's statutory and constitutional structure, though it acknowledged the balance of probability standard of proof
While accepting that the degree of proof is on a balance of probability as stated in Kenya Revenue Authority v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi & 2 others, the Court questioned whether the reasonableness test, which considers only the employer's perspective at the time of termination, fits with Section 45(7)'s requirement of equity and justice and with employee rights under the Bill of Rights, though it acknowledged its views might not be binding.
Entitlement to compensation, notice pay, and leave days
The Claimant was awarded four months' gross salary as compensation under Section 49(1)(c), three months' notice pay, and compensation for earned but unutilized leave days
In exercising discretion under Section 49(1)(c), the Court considered the length of service, the Respondent's failure to adhere to procedural and substantive fairness, the industry, and the effect on future employment prospects. Notice pay was owed as termination took effect immediately with assurance of payment in lieu. Leave days were recoverable because the Respondent, as keeper of records, showed neither utilization nor compensation of untaken leave.
Legal principles established
#- Preparation for a disciplinary hearing is an integral part of the hearing component under Section 41 of the Employment Act; an employer must allow an employee adequate time to prepare and must not ambush employees with disciplinary hearings
- Where the invitation to a disciplinary hearing contains a lesser number of charges than earlier documents, the charges for purposes of the hearing are those on the last document, and the reason for termination must flow from the documents and events preceding the hearing
- The reason for terminating employment must be unambiguously set out; generalized grounds will seldom be considered valid and fair
- Fairness of a termination requires both substantive and procedural fairness; absence of either renders the termination unfair
- An employee whose employment has been terminated is entitled as of right to a Certificate of Service under Section 51 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment was unfair, procedurally and substantively
- 2.The Claimant be paid three (3) months' gross salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 168,242 x 3) Kshs. 504,726.00
- 3.The Claimant be paid compensation for earned but unutilized leave days (Kshs. 168,242 x 54/30) Kshs. 201,890.40
- 4.The Claimant be paid compensation for unfair termination pursuant to Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act, four months' gross salary (168,242 x 4), Kshs. 672,968
- 5.The Claimant be issued with a Certificate of Service within 30 days of the Judgment
- 6.Interest on the monetary awards at Court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 7.The Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act 2007 and Section 49(1)(c) thereof
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Sangare v International Planned Parenthood Federation & another[2026] KEELRC 2520 (KLR)24 Sept 2026applied
- Mokebo v Kenya Women Microfinance (Cause E035 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2634 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2634 (KLR)30 Sept 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omondi v Technical University of Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 589 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2421 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Memorandum of Claim dated 17th June 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2421/eng@2024-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.