Kaimenyi v Petro Oil Kenya Limited (Cause E915 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 122 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a fuel station manager's sacking unfair because her employer couldn't prove theft, awarding her Kshs. 246,554.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether there was a valid reason for the summary dismissal
No valid reason was proved; the Respondent did not prove dishonesty or theft, only that product losses occurred during the Claimant's tenure
Section 43 of the Employment Act requires the employer to prove the reasons for termination on the basis of matters it genuinely believed to exist. The dismissal letter alleged dishonesty, gross negligence or theft, but the disciplinary minutes contained no finding of dishonesty and the word 'grossly' was vague and unsubstantiated. There was no investigation report. The losses proved at most poor performance or incompatibility, grounds requiring different handling.
Whether the procedure before summary dismissal was fair
Procedure was fair; the Respondent complied with section 41 of the Employment Act
The Claimant was issued with a show cause letter which she answered, was invited to a disciplinary hearing with notice of her right to be accompanied by a fellow employee or union official, attended and stated her case, and signed the minutes as accurate. Although the lack of valid reason rendered the termination unfair under section 45, the procedural limb was satisfied.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to the remedies sought
Notice pay and six months' salary compensation awarded; reinstatement, overtime, leave and disciplinary expenses declined
Having found the termination unfair, the court awarded one month's gross salary in lieu of notice per the contract and, considering the nine years of service and factors under section 49(4), six months' salary as compensation. Reinstatement was unavailable after over three years out of employment. Overtime, leave and disciplinary travel expenses were not proved.
Legal principles established
#- An employer bears the burden of proving the reason for termination, failing which the termination is unfair under section 45 of the Employment Act
- For termination to be fair there must be both fair procedure and valid reason; product losses attributable at most to poor performance or incompatibility do not establish gross misconduct without an investigation report
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the summary dismissal of the Claimant's employment was unfair
- 2.Kshs. 35,222 being one month's gross salary in lieu of notice
- 3.Kshs. 211,332 being six months' salary as compensation for unfair termination under section 49 of the Employment Act
- 4.Total award of Kshs. 246,554 to the Claimant
- 5.Respondent to pay the Claimant's costs of the suit
- 6.Interest to accrue from the date of judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (Sections 41, 43, 45, 49 applied)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kaimenyi v Petro Oil Kenya Limited (Cause E915 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 122 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E915 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/122/eng@2025-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.