Nduulu v National Oil Corporation of Kenya (Cause 2021 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 431 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court

13 February 2025

MOMaureen Onyango

6,230 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~25 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

Kenya's Employment Court ruled National Oil unfairly fired its Head of Operations, awarding him 12 months' salary because no proper charges or hearing procedure existed.

What this practically means

Executive summary

The Claimant, formerly Head of Operations of the National Oil Corporation of Kenya, sued claiming his termination on 3rd August 2017 was wrongful, unfair and malicious, alleging the Acting CEO Mary Jane Mwangi harassed him with incessant memos after her appointment and that the disciplinary process was a predetermined charade. He sought injunctions, reinstatement, halting of recruitment of his successor, and alternatively compensation equivalent to his remaining working years plus three months' pay in lieu of notice. The Respondent admitted the employment relationship and maintained the termination was for valid reason and followed fair procedure. The court, considering the pleadings, evidence and submissions, framed three issues: valid reason, fair procedure, and remedies. It found no specific charges were framed against the Claimant either in the hearing invitation or the termination letter, that his explanations were not shown to be unsatisfactory, and that the procedure under section 41 of the Employment Act and the Respondent's HR Policy Manual was not followed - he was not asked to show cause, not informed of his rights, and no Board minutes or HR Committee report were produced. The procedural shortcomings were so gross as to make the process a sham, lending credence to claims of predetermination, bias and malice. The termination was held unfair both substantively and procedurally. Injunctive, reinstatement and recruitment-halting prayers were refused as overtaken by events, and compensation for remaining working years as contrary to the 12-month cap. The court declared the disciplinary process irregular and unlawful, awarded maximum compensation of Kshs. 6,420,000 (12 months), two months' notice pay, terminal benefits, costs and interest.

Key legal issues

Valid reason for termination

Holding

No valid reason was proved; the explanations given by the Claimant were not shown to be unsatisfactory, and no specific charges were framed.

Reasoning

The disciplinary hearing letter did not state charges and the memos referenced did not put the Claimant on notice of contemplated disciplinary action. The Claimant's internal memo explained the contract extension was approved by the CEO and delays were occasioned by the Procurement Department. The letter of termination did not specify which delays were attributable to him, and there was no evidence his explanations were considered or found wanting.

p. 10

Fair procedure

Holding

The termination was procedurally unfair; sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act and the HR Policy Manual were not complied with.

Reasoning

The Claimant was not first asked to show cause, no charges were framed, he received no feedback, was not informed of his section 41 rights, and no minutes or HR Committee report were produced to confirm Board ratification. His handover was demanded before the appeal period expired and he was not invited to present his appeal. These gross procedural shortcomings lent credence to averments of predetermination, bias and malice.

p. 15

Remedies

Holding

Declaratory relief granted plus maximum 12 months' compensation of Kshs. 6,420,000, notice pay and terminal benefits; reinstatement and injunction refused.

Reasoning

Injunctive and reinstatement prayers were overtaken by events and barred by the three-year reinstatement window. Compensation equivalent to remaining working years was not supported by law. Maximum compensation of 12 months was awarded considering the gross manner of termination pointing to malice and bias, and all relevant provisions of section 49(4) of the Employment Act.

p. 15

Legal principles established

The employer bears the burden of proving the reason for termination, failing which the termination is deemed unfair.
Before termination on grounds of misconduct or poor performance, an employer must explain the reasons, hear and consider the employee's representations, and inform the employee of the right to be accompanied.
Compensation for unfair termination is capped at 12 months gross salary.

Court orders

1.Declaration that the disciplinary process against the Claimant was irregular and unlawful
2.Award of maximum compensation of 12 months gross salary in the sum of Kshs. 6,420,000
3.Payment in lieu of notice equivalent to two (2) months gross salary as provided in the letter of termination
4.Payment of all other terminal benefits according to the Claimant's terms of service
5.Respondent to pay the Claimant's costs of the suit
6.Interest at court rates from the date of Judgment

Authorities

Legislation

Employment Actsection 43
Employment Actsection 41
Employment Actsection 44(3) and 44(4)(c)
Employment Actsection 45
Employment Actsection 26
Employment Actsection 49(4)
Employment and Labour Relations Court Actsection 12
Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Actnot specified
Public Procurement and Disposal Regulations2006

Jurisdiction invoked: Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, section 12

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nduulu v National Oil Corporation of Kenya (Cause 2021 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 431 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No 2021 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/431/eng@2025-02-13

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