Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2025] KEELRC 298 (KLR)

Ngwara v Brookside Dairy Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E181 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 298 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 January 2025
2,825 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that firing a worker without serving a show cause letter or holding a hearing makes the dismissal unfair, awarding the salesman over KShs 487,000.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant, a Salesman employed by the Respondent from November 2009 until his summary dismissal on 6th May 2018, claimed terminal dues and compensation for unfair termination, while the Respondent counterclaimed for financial losses of KShs. 2,495,523.00 alleging the Appellant manipulated journals. The Trial Magistrate found the dismissal lawful, dismissed the claim, and also dismissed the counterclaim. On appeal, the ELRC re-evaluated the evidence. The court held that service of the show cause letter was unproven: no certificate of postage was tendered, the alleged poster did not testify (making that evidence hearsay), and the document purported to prove email service was unreliable and fabricated for the suit. The Appellant was never invited to a disciplinary hearing, breaching the mandatory procedure in section 41 of the Employment Act and rendering the dismissal procedurally unfair. The court further held that reasons for a dismissal never put to the employee cannot be valid and fair, so the dismissal was also substantively unfair; the Trial Magistrate erred in holding otherwise. The appeal was allowed, the trial judgment set aside, and Judgment entered for the Appellant: a declaration that the summary dismissal was unfair; seven months' gross salary as compensation under section 49(1)(c) (KShs. 366,793.63); notice pay (KShs. 52,399.09); admitted earned but untaken leave (KShs. 58,162.98); and salary for days worked in May 2018 (KShs. 10,479.818), with interest at court rates and costs of both the lower court suit and the appeal. House allowance and other reliefs were refused as the salary was consolidated or the claims unsupported.

Key legal issues

#
01

Procedural fairness in summary dismissal

Holding

The termination was procedurally unfair because the Appellant was not served with a show cause letter nor invited to a disciplinary hearing

Reasoning

The Respondent claimed service by email and post, but tendered no certificate of postage and the person who allegedly posted the letter did not testify, rendering that evidence hearsay. The document offered to prove email service bore no sender's email address, no message, no indication of an attachment, and was not a confirmation of receipt; the court found it fabricated. The Appellant was therefore never notified of the charges or heard, contrary to section 41.

p. 4
02

Substantive fairness of the dismissal

Holding

The Respondent did not prove the dismissal was substantively fair

Reasoning

Sections 43 and 45 place the burden on the employer to prove valid and fair reasons for termination. Where an employer dismisses without inviting the employee to defend himself against the charges, the reasons cannot be held valid and fair; courts should guard against employers who skip notification and hearing yet hope courts will find only procedural unfairness, as such conduct would erode the post-2007 statutory protections for employees.

p. 4
03

Reliefs independently grantable and quantum of compensation

Holding

The Appellant was awarded 7 months' gross salary compensation, notice pay, earned but untaken leave, and salary for days worked in May 2018; house allowance and other reliefs were refused

Reasoning

Under section 49(1)(c), compensation is discretionary and available only where the unfair termination claim succeeds. The court considered the Respondent's deliberate disregard of procedural fairness, the attempted misleading of the court (an unfair labour practice), and approximately nine years of service, awarding 7 months' compensation. Notice pay followed the contractual one month notice term never issued, and leave and May salary were admitted by the Respondent.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Fair termination embodies both procedural fairness and substantive justification; absence of either renders termination unfair
  • Section 41 of the Employment Act prescribes a mandatory procedure whose non-conformity renders dismissal unfair
  • Where an employee is never notified of the charges nor heard, the reasons for dismissal cannot be held valid and fair
  • The employer bears the legal duty to prove service of a show cause letter; uncorroborated postal service is hearsay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Learned Trial Magistrate's Judgment is set aside and in place thereof Judgment entered for the Appellant
  2. 2.A declaration that the summary dismissal against the Appellant was unfair
  3. 3.Compensation pursuant to Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act of seven (7) months' gross salary of KShs. 366,793.63
  4. 4.Notice Pay of KShs. 52,399.09
  5. 5.Payment of admitted earned but unutilized leave days of KShs. 58,162.98
  6. 6.Payment of salary for the days worked in May 2018 of KShs. 10,479.818
  7. 7.Interest on the sums in (ii) and (iii) at court rates from the date of Judgment till full payment
  8. 8.Interest on the sums in (iv) and (v) at court rates from filing of the suit till full payment
  9. 9.Costs of the suit in the lower court and of the appeal awarded to the Appellant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Penal Codesections 268(1) and 281
  • Criminal Procedure Codesection 210
  • Employment Actsections 41, 43, 45, 49(1)(c)
On appeal from
Magistrates' Court (Learned Trial Magistrate)
Not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction over the Learned Trial Magistrate's judgment; first appellate court re-evaluation of the trial record

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ngwara v Brookside Dairy Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E181 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 298 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/298/eng@2025-01-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.