Shitsama v Kenya Meat Commission (Cause 612 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 192 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An employer must actually hear and decide workplace disciplinary appeals—ignoring an appeal makes an otherwise fair dismissal unfair under Kenyan law.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the primary disciplinary hearing
The primary hearing met the standards of Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
The process was preceded by investigation, interdiction, and notice; the hearing was not rushed and investigations took about six months. The Claimant knew the charges and his procedural rights. The Managing Commissioner's attendance raised no prejudice as he had no special vote and nothing betrayed a prejudicial mind.
Fairness of the appellate stage of the disciplinary process
The appeal process was flawed; the Respondent received the appeal and did not hear or determine it
The Claimant requested disciplinary records to prosecute his appeal; the Respondent exhibited nothing showing the records were supplied, and there was no record of the appeal being heard or of an outcome with reasons. The Claimant had to seek the Ombudsman's intervention. This breached Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act read with Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act and the Human Resource Manual.
Validity of the reason for termination
There was a valid and sufficient reason - gross misconduct in failing to coordinate production during the presidential visit
The Claimant, as Production Manager, was in charge of production including slaughter operations during the visit. He had attended preparatory meetings, raised no concerns about internal challenges, and had earlier been cautioned over inefficiencies. The Court was not persuaded that internal challenges such as finances or power supply excused his failure; a demonstration with even a few animals would have sufficed.
Remedies
Unfair termination declared; compensation of 1 ½ months' salary awarded; other reliefs declined
To the extent the appeal procedure was flawed, termination was unfair and unlawful. Loss of earnings to retirement and service pay were not warranted. Noting his short service of about one year and two months and his significant role leading to termination, equivalent of 1 ½ months' salary (Kshs. 360,000) was awarded.
Legal principles established
#- Where a disciplinary procedure allows for an appeal, the employer must hear and dispose of the appeal fairly, with notice of the outcome and reasons; receiving an appeal without hearing it breaches fair hearing requirements under Section 41 and 45 of the Employment Act read with Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015.
Court orders
#- 1.It is declared that termination was unfair
- 2.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant equivalent of 1 ½ months' salary in compensation for unfair termination at Kshs. 360,000
- 3.No order on the costs
- 4.Interest granted at court rate, from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Sections 41, 43, 45) and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015
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.
- Gakuo v Bomet University College (Petition E008 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2282 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2282 (KLR)31 Jul 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shitsama v Kenya Meat Commission (Cause 612 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 192 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment extract (ELRC Claim, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/192/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.