Mutinda v Canopy Life International (Cause E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 367 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a finance officer's unfair termination claim because his employer followed proper disciplinary procedure and had a valid reason.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the parties were in a contract of service
- 2.What the termination of employment was (the letter, reason and terms of the termination)
- 3.Whether the termination of employment was unfair
Key legal issues
#Existence of a contract of service
The parties were in a contract of service per the letter of offer dated 09.03.2022 for the position of Senior Finance & Operations Officer starting 01.05.2022 on six months' probation
The Court examined the letter of offer which set the start date, six-month probation, and promised a three-year contract if performance was satisfactory. The claimant accepted the offer by signing on 09.03.2022. The consolidated monthly pay was agreed at Kshs.80,000.00, establishing a contract of service despite no three-year contract ever being signed.
Nature and reason for termination
Termination was by letter dated 16.10.2023, effective 16.08.2023, for gross neglect of duty, with 75 days' pay in lieu of notice given as a matter of the respondent's generosity rather than contractual entitlement
The Court found the termination followed a disciplinary hearing of 16.08.2023 and cited the reason as delay in providing explanations on budget line 48 with depleted amounts despite repeated reminders. The 75 days' pay in lieu of notice was not a contractual provision but flowed from the respondent's generosity as stated in the termination letter.
Whether the termination was unfair
The termination was not unfair: procedure was fair per sections 41 and 45, the reason valid and fair per sections 43 and 45, so the claim and all reliefs failed
The claimant received the show cause notice dated 11.08.2023, responded, attended a disciplinary hearing with his witnesses who signed the minutes, and admitted letting down the Director. He confirmed in testimony he had delayed submitting departmental goals despite promises. On this evidence the Court found both procedural and substantive fairness satisfied, and no impairment of the claimant's ability to find gainful employment was shown.
Legal principles established
#- Where a three-year contract contemplated to issue after satisfactory probation is never concluded, the employee reverts to a monthly worker and cannot claim compensation for an unexpired term contract
- Where the employee attended a disciplinary hearing with witnesses, signed the minutes and admitted fault, the procedure is fair under section 41 and the reason valid under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.The memorandum of claim is dismissed with orders each party to bear own costs of the suit
- 2.The Deputy Registrar to return the case file to Machakos Sub-Registry forthwith within three days
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination was unlawful, unfair and invalid and in breach of the employment contract
The Court found the procedure fair under section 41 and the reason valid and fair under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
12 months' salary (Kshs. 1,058,400/-) as compensation under section 49(c) of the Employment Act
Claim for unfair termination found unjustified
27 months and 15 days' salary (Kshs. 2,424,077/-) for the unexpired period of the three-year contract
No three-year term contract was issued; the claimant reverted to a monthly worker and no evidence showed anything impairing him from moving on in gainful employment
Medical cover for the balance of two years (Kshs. 132,000/-)
All reliefs sought were found unjustified following the finding of a fair procedure and valid reason
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the suit
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Court has considered the claimant's own testimony and returns that the procedure for termination was fair per sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act and the reason for termination was valid and fair per sections 43 and 45 of the Act.
There is no established basis for claims upon alleged unexpired period of contract because no three years' term contract issued and the claimant must have reverted to a monthly worker in the circumstances of the case.
Further no evidence exist to show any thing attributable to the respondent that impaired the claimant to move on in gainful employment after the termination.
The memorandum of claim is dismissed with orders each party to bear own costs of the suit.
The Deputy Registrar to return the case file to Machakos Sub-Registry forthwith within three days.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to a letter of termination dated 16.10.2023, which post-dates the termination effective date of 16.08.2023 stated in the same paragraph
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutinda v Canopy Life International (Cause E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 367 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause (Nairobi) - memorandum of claim dated 02.04.2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/367/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.