Emojong v Henkel Chemicals (EA) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1910 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 259 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a former manager Kshs 680,000 because her employer could not prove her dismissal followed a fair process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness under Section 41 of the Employment Act
The disciplinary process was flawed: charges were never framed, minutes of the hearing were not produced, and the employee's request for a witness/union representative was allegedly denied, so fair procedure was not established.
The court found that the show cause letters did not clearly frame charges, as it was unclear whether the allegations were failure to produce documents, negligence, or insubordination. The employer did not produce minutes of the disciplinary hearing, making it impossible to verify what transpired, particularly given the claimant's complaints of double standards and denial of her chosen witness. Section 41 requires explanation of reasons and the presence of a fellow employee or union representative. Without minutes, the employer could not discharge its burden of proving a fair process.
Valid and fair reason under Section 45(2) of the Employment Act
The respondent failed to establish the existence of a valid reason for the dismissal nor evidence of a fair disciplinary process, rendering the termination unfair.
Under Section 45(2), the employer must prove a valid reason related to conduct, capacity or compatibility and that fair procedure was followed. The court noted there was no indication that the Section 41 process was followed, and with no minutes of the hearing and the claimant expressing reservations about the entire process, the respondent failed to discharge the evidential burden of justifying the termination.
Ambiguity of the charges against the employee
The employer failed to frame clear charges, undermining the fairness of the termination.
The court observed that it was not clear whether the charges were failure to produce documents, negligence of duty, or insubordination. The respondent was obligated to frame charges and require the claimant to answer them, which was never done, further evidencing procedural unfairness.
Legal principles established
#- An employer relying on a disciplinary process must produce minutes of the disciplinary hearing; in the absence of minutes, the court cannot ascertain whether the case against the employee was addressed, and the employer fails to prove fair procedure and valid reason.
- An employer must frame specific charges against an employee and require the employee to answer to them before termination.
Court orders
#- 1.Compensation for unfair termination equivalent to 6 months' salary being Kshs 510,000
- 2.Salary for July 2017 being Kshs 85,000
- 3.Pay in lieu of notice being Kshs 85,000, total Kshs 680,000 less statutory deductions
- 4.Respondents to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 and the Employment Act, 2007
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.
- Agricultural Finance Corporation v Galgalo Jarso Jillo[2025] KECA 2068 (KLR)5 Dec 2025followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Emojong v Henkel Chemicals (EA) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1910 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 259 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided (Memorandum of Claim dated 26th September 2017, Amended Statement of Claim dated 27th September 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/259/eng@2025-02-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.