Kibore v Kenya Veterinary Vaccines Production Institute & 2 others (Cause E223 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 132 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court upheld a vet institute's dismissal of an employee who claimed he was seconded to a county, and ordered him to refund over Kshs 577,000 in double salary.
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 Claimant's summary dismissal of employment was unfair and unlawful
- 2.Whether the Respondents breached the Claimant's Constitutional rights
- 3.Whether the parties are entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was substantively fair
Dismissal was substantively justified; the Claimant absconded and was not on lawful secondment
The Claimant applied for leave and simultaneously sought secondment after he had already started working for Elgeyo Marakwet County in February 2020. The County confirmed he was competitively recruited on a three-year fixed term contract, not seconded. Pension was never remitted. Absconding is gross misconduct under section 44 of the Employment Act justifying summary dismissal.
Whether the dismissal was procedurally fair under section 41 of the Employment Act
Fair procedure was followed; the Claimant received all correspondence and failed to attend three scheduled hearings
The court found the Claimant received the show cause letter, invitations to disciplinary hearings and related correspondence by registered mail, G4S courier and email, as evidenced by his email of 30th September 2020 acknowledging receipt of the letter of 15th September 2020. His denials of receipt were rejected as untruthful.
Whether the Claimant's constitutional rights under Articles 40, 41 and 50 were violated
No violation proved; violations must be pleaded and proved with precision
Relying on the Anarita Karimi Njeru standard as restated in Mumo Matemu, the court held the Claimant failed to plead particulars of violation with precision, and in any event the termination was for justifiable reasons reached through fair procedure.
Whether the Respondents' counterclaim for salary paid during the purported secondment and rent was merited
Refund of salary (Kshs 577,820.08) allowed; rent claim dismissed for lack of proof
It was not disputed the Claimant drew two salaries from February to May 2020 and he admitted seeking a computation for repayment, so the refund was due. The rent claim failed because the respondent gave no evidence of how the Kshs 6,750 monthly rate was computed, and special damages must be strictly proved.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination to be fair the employer must demonstrate valid reasons and a fair procedure under section 43 of the Employment Act
- Secondment requires the agreement and consultation of the principal employer; an employee cannot merely assume secondment without following the prescribed procedure
- Allegations of constitutional violation must be pleaded and proved with precision
- Special damages must be strictly proved
Court orders
#- 1.Claimant's claim found without merit and dismissed
- 2.Respondents' counterclaim for salary paid February 2020 – May 2020 (Kshs 144,455.02 x 4 = Kshs 577,820.08) allowed
- 3.Claim for rent dismissed
- 4.Claimant to vacate immediately the respondent's residential house he occupied by virtue of his employment
- 5.Respondents to have costs of the counterclaim
- 6.Interest on the decretal sum to accrue at court rates from date of judgment until payment in full
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40, 41 and 50 of the Constitution and the Employment Act (employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the ELRC)
Relief refused
#Declaration that dismissal was unlawful and unprocedural; lifting of dismissal and reinstatement; compensation and exemplary damages
Respondents had valid reasons for termination and followed fair procedure; secondment was not properly effected
Compensation for violation of constitutional rights under Articles 40, 41 and 50
Violations were not pleaded and proved with precision
Certificate of service
Not requested in writing and Claimant had not cleared with the 1st Respondent
Counterclaim for rent from June 2020 to date of judgment
Special damage not strictly proved as the respondent gave no evidence how the monthly rental of Kshs 6,750 was arrived at
Costs
Claimant's claim dismissed; the respondent shall have costs of the Counter-claim
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.
Claimant's claim is found without merit and is hereby dismissed costs.
The Respondents' counterclaim for salary paid (February, 2020 -May, 2020) Kshs 144,455.02 x 4 =577,820.08/- is hereby allowed
Claim for rent is hereby dismissed
The claimant to vacate immediately, if not done already, the respondent's residential house he occupied by virtue of his employment
For a termination from employment to be considered fair, an employer must demonstrate that it had valid reasons for the termination and that in carrying out the termination, the employer followed a fair procedure in line with section 43 of the Employment Act.
secondment can only be done with the agreement and consultation with the principal employer which did not happen in this case hence it was never secondment.
Being a special damage claim, it ought have been strictly proved.
Issues in the judgment
#Gender inconsistency in reference to the Claimant
Discrepancy in the monthly salary figure used in the counterclaim computation (577,820.08 elsewhere computed as 144,455.03 x 4 but decreed as 144,455.02 x 4)
Order (i) on costs is garbled - the word 'costs' appears appended without a stated recipient, while costs are only expressly awarded on the counterclaim
The Claimant filed no submissions; the determination proceeded on the pleadings, evidence and the Respondents' submissions only
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kibore v Kenya Veterinary Vaccines Production Institute & 2 others (Cause E223 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 132 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause (Nairobi) – Memorandum of Claim dated 12th March, 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/132/eng@2025-01-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.