Ochieng v County Government of Homa Bay & 2 others (Cause E082 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 532 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Homa Bay County was ordered to pay a former Chief Officer over Kshs 3.4 million for firing him without a hearing under Kenya's Employment Act.
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 termination of the Claimant's employment was unfair and unlawful for want of a hearing and valid reasons
- 2.What remedies the Claimant is entitled to upon a finding of unfair termination
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant's dismissal was procedurally fair
The termination was unfair and unlawful as the Claimant was interdicted, suspended and replaced without a hearing, reasons, or a dismissal letter
The Claimant responded to a show-cause letter but was thereafter placed on compulsory leave, interdicted on half salary, and replaced without any hearing. No dismissal letter was issued. The Respondents disregarded the mandatory requirements of sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act and Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution. The Respondents, having not filed a response, failed to justify the termination under section 47(5).
The appropriate remedies for the unfair termination
Twelve months' gross salary as compensation under section 49(1) of the Employment Act plus one month's salary in lieu of notice
The Court, mindful of section 49(1) of the Employment Act, considered the manner of termination — including the failure to pay half salary for an indefinite period — and the Claimant's loss of approximately two years of a three-year contract. An award of 12 months' compensation was deemed adequate for the egregious dismissal, together with notice pay, costs and interest.
Legal principles established
#- Termination for misconduct must be accompanied by a fair process including notification of grounds and an opportunity to be heard, as mandated by sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
- An employer cannot unilaterally invoke a contractual provision to deny an employee the protection of mandatory statutory provisions such as section 41 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant against the Respondents jointly and severally
- 2.Kshs. 267,800/- being one month's salary in lieu of notice
- 3.Kshs. 3,213,600/- being 12 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination
- 4.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
- 5.Interest at court rates on the awards from the date of judgment till payment in full
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 and Constitution (Articles 41, 47, 50 and 236 invoked); specific enabling provision not stated in the judgment
Relief refused
#Claim for non-payment of half salary during suspension/interdiction
The Court considered the claim abandoned as the Claimant only pursued notice pay and compensation
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the Claimant
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.
In the final analysis I enter judgment for the Claimant against the Respondents jointly and severally:
Kshs. 3,213,600/- being 12 month’s salary as compensation.
Interest at court rates on the sum in (a) and (b) above from the date of judgment till payment in full.
Granted the Respondent decided to disregard the provisions of section 41 of the Employment Act which mandated it to conduct a hearing in terms of the law, I find and hold that an award of 12 month’s compensation would sufice for the improper and unlawful termination.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, neutral citation or the full names of the parties in the coram; parties are referred to only as Claimant and Respondents
The identity of the 1st Respondent is not expressly named in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ochieng v County Government of Homa Bay & 2 others (Cause E082 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 532 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/532/eng@2025-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.