Maubi v Rural Electrification and Renewable Energy Corporation (Cause E672 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2848 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed an employer can have valid reasons to fire someone, yet still lose for botching the disciplinary process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether there was a valid and fair reason for termination
Yes — the Respondent proved the Claimant was negligent in approving and clearing payments originated by an unauthorised officer
The internal audit revealed Kshs 430 million paid to three survey companies for non-existent projects. The payment spreadsheet showed entries originated from Ibrahim Ongeri of the Survey Department, not the procurement department — a red flag the Claimant as Senior Accountant should have detected. By approving payments that did not originate from the authorised officer, he failed to exercise the care reasonably expected of him, satisfying Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Whether the Claimant was taken through a fair process
No — the process was procedurally unfair on multiple grounds
The Board heard the case at first instance yet was designated the appellate body, stifling the right of appeal. The Respondent withheld the internal audit report underlying the charges without justification, impairing the defence. Only two days' notice of the hearing was given, contrary to the HR Manual's requirement of adequate preparation time. Further, the show cause and hearing-invitation letters betrayed a predetermined outcome, rendering the hearing cosmetic.
Appropriate relief
Reinstatement declined; three months' gross salary awarded as compensatory damages for procedural unfairness; service pay declined
Because the court found a valid and fair reason for termination, reinstatement and salary arrears were untenable. Under Section 49(4), the employee's contribution to the termination is a relevant factor. Procedural unfairness nonetheless warranted compensation of three months' gross salary (Kshs 497,100). Service pay was excluded because the Claimant belonged to a pension scheme under Section 35(6)(a).
Legal principles established
#- An employer must prove the reasons for termination, failing which the termination is unfair (Section 43(1) Employment Act)
- An employee is entitled to documents in the employer's possession that would assist in preparing a defence to disciplinary charges
- Issuing a show cause notice and granting a hearing does not automatically amount to a fair hearing; the entire process must embody fair-hearing elements
- An appeal to the same body that heard and determined the disciplinary case violates the employee's right of appeal
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment was procedurally unfair
- 2.Compensatory damages awarded to the Claimant in the sum of Kshs 497,100.00, equivalent to three (3) months of his gross salary
- 3.Interest on the award at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 4.The Claimant to have the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (Sections 41, 43, 45, 49); Articles 47, 48, 50 of the Constitution invoked by the Claimant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maubi v Rural Electrification and Renewable Energy Corporation (Cause E672 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2848 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2848/eng@2024-11-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.