Onyango v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E595 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 167 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled KRA unfairly fired an employee because it sent a critical disciplinary letter to her email account it had blocked.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the show cause letter and hearing invitation were properly served on the Claimant
The second show cause letter was never received by the Claimant as it was sent to her official KRA email account which was blocked during her suspension
The court found the second show cause letter dated 15th July 2019 was sent to the Claimant's official email while she was on suspension, with her account blocked. The respondents also failed to establish that the yahoo.com email address used to invite her to the hearing belonged to the Claimant. In the absence of proof of service, the disciplinary process could not be deemed fair.
Whether the termination was substantively and procedurally fair
The Claimant was unfairly and unjustly terminated without valid reasons being established and without due process
The Respondent's witnesses failed to provide substantive evidence linking the Claimant to the alleged misconduct. The court applied Section 45(2) of the Employment Act, requiring the employer to prove valid reasons and fair procedure. Having found the process flawed and reasons unestablished, the termination was unfair.
Whether the Claimant's claim that documents were withheld was proved
The Claimant failed to produce the alleged human resource manual and to prove that she sought documents that were never provided
While the Claimant asserted her suspension exceeded three years contrary to the Respondent's human resource manual and that documents were withheld, she did not produce the manual or evidence of her requests. This element of her claim therefore remained unproven.
Legal principles established
#- An employer bears the burden of proving both valid reasons for termination and adherence to fair procedure under Section 45(2) of the Employment Act
- Where an employer cannot establish that an employee was properly notified of and invited to a disciplinary hearing, due process is not satisfied
Court orders
#- 1.8 months' salary as compensation for the unfair termination, based on gross pay (8 x Kshs 119,000 = Kshs 952,000) less statutory deductions
- 2.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (implied; not expressly cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyango v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E595 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 167 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/167/eng@2025-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.