Koech v Kenya Post Office Savings Bank (Petition E034 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 430 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan bank was ordered to pay Kshs. 1 million because it dismissed an employee without giving him a fair hearing, even after a court cleared him of theft.
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 Petitioner's summary dismissal violated Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution and section 41 of the Employment Act on procedural fairness
- 2.Whether the Respondent discharged its burden under sections 43 and 44 of the Employment Act to justify the termination and summary dismissal
- 3.Whether the Petitioner's acquittal in the criminal proceedings invalidated the dismissal
- 4.What remedies, if any, the Petitioner is entitled to, including whether reinstatement or certiorari could issue
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness in summary dismissal
The dismissal breached the procedural fairness requirements of Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution and section 41 of the Employment Act; the decision to terminate was made unilaterally without a proper hearing
The Petitioner relied on Articles 41, 47 and 236 of the Constitution and section 41 of the Employment Act, arguing he was never accorded a hearing before dismissal. The Respondent's letter of 31st December 2021 merely recorded 'careful evaluation' of his appeal, underscoring the absence of a proper hearing. The Respondent, though served, filed no response, leaving the petition unchallenged. The court accepted that procedural fairness is required notwithstanding alleged gross misconduct.
Burden of justifying termination and summary dismissal under sections 43 and 44 of the Employment Act
The Respondent failed to discharge its statutory obligation to prove the reasons for termination and to justify summary dismissal, having not defended the suit or provided its version of events
Sections 43 and 44 of the Employment Act place on the employer the burden of proving the reasons for termination and justifying summary dismissal. The Respondent neither entered appearance nor filed a response, so the court had no evidence from the employer justifying the dismissal. The Petitioner's acquittal on charges of stealing by servant founded on the same allegations further undermined any basis for the termination.
Legal principles established
#- Even where gross misconduct warrants summary dismissal, an employer must ensure procedural fairness by allowing the employee to give his defence before imposing the sanction
Court orders
#- 1.Compensation of Kshs. 1,000,000/- for the breach of the Petitioner's constitutional rights as regards his employment with the Respondent
- 2.Costs of the Petition to the Petitioner
- 3.Interest at court rates on the compensation sum from the date of judgment until payment in full
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22(1), 41, 47 and 236 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, in relation to employment and fair administrative action
Relief refused
#Order of certiorari to quash the dismissal and reinstatement to his position
The court found reinstatement impossible and certiorari unavailable; the Petitioner himself conceded this in submissions
Permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from replacing him
Not granted, reinstatement having been found unattainable
Costs
Costs of the Petition awarded to the Petitioner
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.
He cannot be reinstated and therefore the orders sought of certiorari will not issue. He will instead be compensated as follows
Kshs. 1,000,000/- (Read - One million Kenya Shillings only) for the breach of his constitutional rights as regards his employ with the Respondent.
Costs of the Petition.
even where an employee has committed gross acts of misconduct, which acts warrant summary dismissal, the law requires that before such sanction is undertaken, an employer must ensure procedural fairness
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date discrepancy: the letter reviving the claim is referred to as dated 31st December 2021 in the reliefs but as 31st October 2021 in submissions
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koech v Kenya Post Office Savings Bank (Petition E034 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 430 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/430/eng@2025-02-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.