Runo v Kenya Wildlife Service (Cause 1773 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 116 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya Wildlife Service must pay a former procurement head over KShs. 3.4 million after a court found his 2016 dismissal unfair and dismissed its KShs. 31 million counterclaim.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the termination
The termination was procedurally unfair: the termination letter introduced grounds beyond those in the show cause letter, and the employer failed to prove timely service of the extension letter, denying the Claimant adequate time to prepare
Section 41 of the Employment Act requires notification, hearing and consideration. The show cause letter set out four accusations, but the termination letter added grounds (i, vi and vii) which went beyond those charges. The Claimant protested the three-day notice; the Respondent claimed it extended time but could not prove service of the extension letter. Terminating on un-notified charges renders the notification requirement meaningless.
Substantive justification of the termination
The Respondent failed to prove valid and fair grounds; there were budgeted and available funds for the vehicles, the funds availability certificate was not a requirement of the Respondent's own manual, and no reasonable employer could dismiss on those grounds
Through the consolidated procurement plan, vote book extract, audit report and purchase requisition, the Claimant showed funds were budgeted and available. RW1 admitted the Procurement Manual did not require a funds availability certificate. The Respondent's witnesses' statements wrongly suggested the Claimant single-handedly undertook a multi-departmental process, and the Director General, central to the contested grounds, was not called to testify.
Entitlement to gratuity for 1995-2002 and under-deducted pension 2002-2006
The Claimant is entitled to the gratuity despite its omission from his contract, as a decision of the Respondent's organ granted it and other employees benefited; denying it would be discriminatory and a breach of legitimate expectation
RW1 admitted the entitlement but contended it had to be incorporated into the contract, relying on Pathfinder International. The court rejected this: the Board of Trustees resolved in 2007 to pay the gratuity at 31% of gross pay, other employees benefited without contractual crafting, and disentitling the Claimant would be discriminatory, unreasonable and in breach of legitimate expectation.
Compensatory relief under section 49(1)(c)
Compensation of ten months' gross salary (KShs. 3,440,000) awarded
The relief is discretionary. The court considered that it could have reinstated the Claimant but for the statutory limitation; his approximately 26.5 years of service; that only four years remained to mandatory retirement; that his age barred re-employment; and the Respondent's want of care on procedural and substantive fairness.
The Counterclaim
Dismissed as destitute of merit
The Respondent sought a liquidated sum of KShs. 31,023,070.80 which had to be specifically proved. RW3 admitted he could not explain where the figure was derived from and the Respondent produced no document supporting it. The court could not fathom how the Claimant caused the claimed loss, noting the vehicles were delivered and distributed to the Respondent's stations.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employee is terminated on accusations outside those set out in the show cause letter, the termination is procedurally unfair
- An employer asserting service of a document bears the burden of proving that service
- Where an employer withholds a vital witness (the Director General) who could have testified on contested grounds, the court may draw an adverse inference
- A liquidated sum in a counterclaim must be specifically proved with documentary evidence
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment was unfair
- 2.A declaration that the Claimant was entitled to gratuity payment pursuant to the Respondent's document referenced KWS /BO5/WP/ 03/34/2007, with computation of cumulative gratuity by the Respondent within 14 days, to be served on the Claimant for concurrence, failing which the Claimant to compute, and the matter to be mentioned for recording of final judgment on gratuity
- 3.Compensation pursuant to section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act of ten months' gross salary, KShs. 3,440,000
- 4.Interest on the awarded sums at court rates from the date of the suit till full payment
- 5.Costs of the suit and the dismissed Counterclaim to the Claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution / Employment and Labour Relations Act (court established to hear employment and labour disputes; section 12 ELRC Act referred to on reinstatement)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Runo v Kenya Wildlife Service (Cause 1773 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 116 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No 1773 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/116/eng@2025-01-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.