Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELRC 475 (KLR)

Ochako v Delmonte Kenya Limited (Cause 858 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 475 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 February 2025
BOByram Ongaya
1,923 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court upheld the dismissal of a payroll accountant who changed her own salary, even though the company lost no money.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed as a Payroll Accountant and confirmed in 2017, was summarily dismissed on 14.12.2020 after the respondent discovered that on 11th and 12th November 2020 she had accessed payroll categories not assigned to her and altered her basic salary (from Kshs. 91,015 to figures as high as Kshs. 250,000) and her housing and transport allowances. She sought terminal benefits of Kshs. 2,097,270, general damages for unlawful and wrongful termination, a certificate of service, interest and costs. Her defence was that she was conducting a routine system check on the live payroll environment using her own payslip as a dummy, reverting the changes within five minutes, and that the disciplinary committee acted hastily and denied her rights. The respondent asserted that she had been restricted to the 'Factory' and 'Contractors' categories, that the activity was discovered in a routine monthly review, and that it followed the proper process: an explanation demand, paid suspension, investigation, show-cause notice, and a disciplinary hearing with a right to a witness, after which she was dismissed, paid her dues and issued a certificate of service. The court found the claimant had admitted the alterations and had tested on the live rather than the test environment, with contradictory testimony. It upheld the dismissal as fair in procedure and substance under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, noting no actual monetary loss but holding that misconduct was established. The suit was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the reason for termination

Holding

The reason - the claimant's alteration of her salary and allowances in the payroll system - was valid and fair, establishing misconduct under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

The claimant admitted accessing the payroll system and amending her salary from Kshs. 91,015 to Kshs. 250,000 and adjusting allowances. Her explanation that it was a system test was contradicted because the changes were made on the live environment rather than the test environment. The court found the misconduct established and that whether another employer would have dismissed was immaterial.

p. 4
02

Procedural fairness of the dismissal

Holding

The disciplinary process complied with section 41 of the Employment Act - the claimant received notices, responded, was heard, and participated in the disciplinary hearing.

Reasoning

The respondent issued a show-cause letter dated 07.12.2020, a hearing notice dated 10.12.2020 informing the claimant of her right to a witness, and convened a disciplinary hearing with recorded minutes signed by all present. The claimant herself testified that she had undergone the disciplinary process, supporting the finding of procedural fairness.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer dismissing an employee for misconduct must show a valid and fair reason existing at the time of dismissal (section 43) and fair procedure (sections 41 and 45); a self-confessed unauthorised alteration of payroll in a live environment justifies summary dismissal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is dismissed
  2. 2.The claimant to pay the costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007; claim for unfair and wrongful termination)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ochako v Delmonte Kenya Limited (Cause 858 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 475 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/475/eng@2025-02-21

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