Njoroge v Bio Foods Production Limited (Cause E019 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 596 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded an employee Kshs. 881,719 after finding her dismissal unfair because her employer proved no valid reason and botched the disciplinary hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed
No constructive dismissal; there was an express letter of termination detailing reasons
The Court found the circumstances of leaving employment were not contested and that an express termination letter dated 16th February 2024 was issued stating the reasons for dismissal (falsification of car wash receipts). Constructive dismissal requires the employee to resign because of the employer's conduct; here the employment was terminated by the employer expressly, so the constructive dismissal claim failed even though termination was found unfair on procedure and substantiation.
Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
Procedure was flawed after the first disciplinary hearing; it was irregular to reopen the hearing and introduce a fresh witness
The first hearing yielded no clear verdict; the Claimant was offered transfer to Nairobi which she accepted, yet the Respondent extended her suspension and reopened the hearing with a new witness. The Court held that once a hearing is completed and issues resolved, reopening it is irregular; witnesses must be known to both parties and availed at the first hearing. This rendered the process procedurally flawed.
Valid reason for termination
No valid reason established under Sections 43 and 45
Although the Claimant was dismissed on account of falsification of car wash receipts, an allegation she had responded to in the notice to show cause, no evidence was placed before the Court establishing that or any other allegation. The burden rests on the employer to justify termination; failure of proof rendered the substantive termination unfair.
Constitutionalisation of the employment dispute
Unnecessary to invoke constitutional articles; the Employment Act provides adequate remedies
The Court declined the invitation to determine the claim on constitutional grounds, holding that the dispute falls squarely within the Employment Act, 2007, which grants adequate remedies. This reflects the principle that employment disputes should ordinarily be resolved under the statutory framework rather than through constitutional litigation.
Quantum of compensation and notice
Notice granted as prayed at Kshs. 76,024; compensation of 7 ½ months' gross salary at Kshs. 805,695
In exercising discretion under Section 49, the Court considered the 11 years of service, that the Claimant did not contribute to the dismissal, that she did not state how long she expected to work or whether she secured alternative employment (she resides in Dubai, suggesting alternative work), and awarded the equivalent of 7 ½ months' gross salary, with one month's notice as pleaded.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must establish valid reason for termination under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act; allegations not supported by evidence cannot justify termination
- Disciplinary hearings must not be open-ended; witnesses must be known to both parties and availed at the first hearing, and it is irregular to reopen a completed hearing
- An employee subscribed to N.S.S.F is not entitled to service pay under section 35(5) & (6) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that termination was unfair
- 2.Respondent to pay notice at Kshs. 76,024 and compensation for unfair termination equivalent of 7 ½ months' gross salary at Kshs. 805,695, total Kshs. 881,719
- 3.Certificate of Service to issue
- 4.Costs to the Claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (dispute falls squarely under the Employment Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge v Bio Foods Production Limited (Cause E019 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 596 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/596/eng@2025-02-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.