Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 284 of 2019· [2025] KEELRC 351 (KLR)

Cherono v Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Limited (Cause 284 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 351 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
29 January 2025
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
5,596 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~22 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed an unfair termination claim because the employee failed to attend her disciplinary hearing and couldn't prove her dismissal was unfair.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent from 1st November 2006 as an Accountant II and upgraded to Accountant I with effect from 1st January 2017, sued for unfair termination following the termination of her employment by letter dated 28th June 2018. She alleged a hostile work environment, unexplained transfers, discriminatory treatment, harassment, and denial of a fair hearing, contending that disciplinary proceedings were rushed while she was undergoing IVF treatment and suffering high blood pressure. She sought compensation of twelve months' salary, damages of Kshs.5,000,000 for discrimination and unfair labour practices, leave and bonus dues of Kshs.284,711, interest and costs. The Respondent denied the claim, asserting the Claimant had a history of disciplinary issues, refused to sign performance targets, threatened colleagues and sent abusive messages, and that due process was followed: a show cause letter was issued and answered, a disciplinary hearing was adjourned at her request and rescheduled for 14th June 2018, which she failed to attend without explanation, and an appeal hearing on 24th August 2018 upheld the termination. The court framed three issues: lawfulness of the termination, entitlement to relief, and costs. It held the termination lawful, finding the Claimant had failed to discharge her burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act and section 47(5) of the Employment Act, and that substantive and procedural fairness under sections 41, 43 and 45 had been observed. All reliefs were consequently refused. The claim was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs. Judgment was delivered on 29th January 2025 by D. K. Njagi Marete, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination was wrongful, unfair and unlawful

Holding

The court found the termination lawful, holding the Claimant failed to prove unfairness; due process under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act was followed.

Reasoning

The Claimant was served with a show cause letter to which she responded, and was invited to a disciplinary hearing which was postponed at her request citing IVF treatment. She failed to attend the rescheduled hearing on 14th June 2018 without offering any reason, and an appeal hearing on 24th August 2018 upheld the termination. The court found the Respondent's case compliant with substantive and procedural fairness and held the Claimant failed to discharge her burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act and section 47(5) of the Employment Act.

02

Whether the Claimant was entitled to the relief sought

Holding

Relief refused; entitlement flowed from success on the unfair termination claim, which failed.

Reasoning

Because the court found the termination lawful, the compensation under section 49(1)(c), damages for discrimination and harassment, and the leave and bonus claims all fell away as they were premised on a finding of unlawful termination.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee alleging unfair termination bears the burden of proof under section 47(5) of the Employment Act and section 107 of the Evidence Act, and failure to discharge it disentitles the employee to relief.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the Claimant's claim
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41(1)
  • Employment ActSection 45
  • Employment ActSection 5(3)(b)
  • Employment ActSection 49(1)(c)
  • Employment ActSections 41, 43 and 45; Section 47(5)
  • Evidence ActSection 107
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 41 and 50
  • Employment and Labour Relations ActSection 20
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court RulesRule 25

Cases cited (5)

  • Naima Khamis v Oxford University Press (E.A.) Ltd
    [2017] eKLR
  • Kamau v Tusker Mattresses Limited
    (Cause 1217 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 12788 (KLR)
  • Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd & Another v Gladys Muthoni & 20 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Moses Kirui Toroitich v County Secretary, County Government of Baringo & 2 Others
    [2021] eKLR
  • Henry Ochido v NGO Coordination Board
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Act, Section 20, and Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules, Rule 25

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cherono v Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Limited (Cause 284 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 351 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No 284 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/351/eng@2025-01-29

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