WKR v Timaflor Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 97 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a worker's firing was fair in substance but unfair in process, awarding him Kshs.148,616 because his employer gave no proper hearing notice.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was unlawful and unfair.
- 2.Whether the reliefs sought are merited.
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent proved a valid and fair reason for terminating the claimant's employment
The respondent proved a valid and fair reason - deteriorating work performance and absenteeism; the claimant's ill-health was not shown to have caused the poor performance.
The termination letter cited deteriorating work performance and the disciplinary hearing minutes recorded the supervisor's evidence of pending jobs and absenteeism. Although the court was satisfied the claimant reported ill-health during employment, no medical investigations proved the illness was caused by working conditions or caused the poor performance. The numerous warning letters pointed to a systemic attitude towards his work. The respondent therefore discharged its onus of proof under section 45 of the Employment Act.
Whether the procedure followed in terminating the employment was fair under section 41 of the Employment Act
The procedure was unfair; the claimant was ambushed with the disciplinary hearing without adequate notice or opportunity to prepare.
The claimant denied receipt of the hearing notice dated 15th May 2023 and maintained he was called from his workstation on the day of the hearing. There was no evidence proving service of the hearing notice. The claimant therefore had no fair opportunity to prepare his defence or to have a fellow employee of his choice accompany him, contrary to section 41. The subsequent offer of 45 days' salary in lieu of notice could not cure the unfairness already occasioned.
Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation and terminal dues
The claimant was awarded three months' gross salary as compensation under section 49, plus the terminal dues itemised in the termination letter; other claims failed for lack of particulars.
In view of the finding of unfair termination, the court invoked section 49 of the Employment Act. Considering the claimant's approximately five years of service and his contribution to the termination through misconduct and poor performance, three months' gross salary (Kshs.18,006 per month, totalling Kshs.54,018) was awarded. Terminal dues of Kshs.94,598 as offered in the termination letter were awarded, but the remaining claims were rejected as lacking particulars and being exaggerated.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination to pass muster under section 45 of the Employment Act, the employer must prove a valid and fair reason and that a fair procedure was followed.
- A disciplinary hearing conducted without adequate notice, without an opportunity to prepare a defence and without the right to be accompanied amounts to an ambush and is not a fair procedure under section 41 of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Compensation for unfair termination of Kshs.54,018.00 (three months' gross salary).
- 2.Terminal dues of Kshs.94,598.00 as offered in the termination letter dated 16th May 2023 and computed in the May 2023 pay slip.
- 3.Total award of Kshs.148,616.00 subject to statutory deductions.
- 4.Costs of the suit awarded to the claimant in the Lower Court scale where the suit ought to have been filed.
- 5.Interest at court rate from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, Cap 226 (sections 41, 43, 45 and 49) and Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya invoked in the claim
Relief refused
#Declaration that the termination contravened Articles 41(1) & (2)(a) and 47(1) & (2) of the Constitution and sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
Not expressly granted; the court found a valid and fair reason for the termination and only the procedure was unfair
General damages for wrongful and unfair termination
Not awarded; the court instead awarded statutory compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act
Claims for unpaid and withheld dues, NSSO/NHIF dues, unpaid overtime and other terminal dues beyond the amounts in the termination letter
Rejected for lack of particulars and exaggeration
Payment of Kshs.15,000 for specialized medical tests and redeployment on account of ill-health
No evidence that the illness was caused by the working conditions or was the reason for poor performance
Costs
The claimant is awarded costs in the Lower Court scale where the suit ought to have been filed.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The legal principle in the above section is that for termination to pass muster, the employer must have a valid and fair reason, and fair procedure must be followed.
I find that the claimant was ambushed with the disciplinary hearing on 16th May 2023. He was not accorded a fair opportunity to prepare for the hearing and to have another employee of his choice present during the hearing.
There is however no evidence to prove that the illness was caused by his working condition or that it was the reason for his poor work performance.
However, the mess had already been done and the termination rendered unfair by the failure to accord the claimant a fair hearing.
c. The award is subject to statutory deductions. d. The claimant is awarded costs in the Lower Court scale where the suit ought to have been filed. e. Interest at court rate from the date of filing the suit till payment in full.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the claimant testified as CW1 but earlier records the medical witness Mr. Leonard Kaberia also as CW1; the claimant's witness number appears duplicated.
RW2's evidence states the disciplinary hearing was attended on 16th July 2023 whereas the rest of the judgment records the hearing date as 16th May 2023.
Paragraph 29 attributes RW2's evidence to RW1 ('RW1 stated that the claimant was served with a disciplinary hearing notice'), an apparent internal mislabel.
The monetary figure for the Neon X-ray test appears redacted/incomplete in the judgment ('Kshs.30XXXX').
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.
- SGA Security Solutions Ltd v Kasanya (Appeal E079 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2683 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2683 (KLR)2 Oct 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "WKR v Timaflor Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 97 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/97/eng@2025-01-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.