Royal Clothing EPZ Limited v Muomo (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E024 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 464 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that firing a worker without a proper, documented hearing makes the dismissal unfair, even where misconduct is alleged.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal of the Respondent was procedurally fair under section 41 of the Employment Act
The dismissal was procedurally unfair; the Appellant did not prove a disciplinary hearing related to the 3rd June 2021 incident was held, the show cause letter, response and dismissal all bore the same date, and the disciplinary report had an altered date and related to earlier absenteeism.
The Court re-evaluated the evidence on first appeal. The disciplinary hearing report produced by the Appellant bore an altered date and charged absenteeism from 9th to 22nd March 2021, not the alleged misconduct of 3rd June 2021. The claimant's alleged response was dated 2nd June 2021, a day before the show cause letter, which the Court found doubtful. The trial court's application of section 41 and reliance on Kisii Bottlers was upheld.
Whether the award of three months' salary as compensation was excessive
The award of three months' salary was not inordinately high, taking into account the length of service, the remaining contract period, and the Appellant's serious attempt to mislead the court.
The Court noted the Respondent's one-year contract was due to end in December 2021 and he had been employed since September 2020. The trial court relied on Kisii Bottlers where a similarly unheard employee was awarded three months. Guided by Mbogo v Shah, the Court found no basis to interfere with the trial court's discretionary award, especially given the Appellant's attempt to mislead the court through an altered document.
Legal principles established
#- On first appeal, the court has a duty to re-evaluate the evidence before the trial court while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
- An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by an inferior court unless the decision is clearly wrong, based on misdirection or failure to consider relevant matters
- Compliance with section 41 of the Employment Act requires the employer to explain the reasons for termination to the employee in a language the employee understands, allow a representative, and hear and consider the employee's representations
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- 2.The Judgment and Decree of the Principal Magistrate's Court at Mavoko delivered by Honourable E.K Suter (PM) on the 17th February 2023 in Mavoko CMEL No. E115 OF 2020 is upheld
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court at Mavoko
- Mavoko CMEL No. E115 OF 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over appeals from subordinate courts in employment and labour relations matters (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Royal Clothing EPZ Limited v Muomo (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E024 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 464 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Appeal from Mavoko CMEL No. E115 OF 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/464/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.