Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No E695 of 2023· [2025] KEELRC 667 (KLR)

Lijoodi v Transmara Sugar Company Ltd (Cause E695 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 667 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 February 2025
SRStella Rutto
3,616 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a manager's unfair dismissal claim, confirming employers only need to prove dismissal reasons on a balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, formerly employed as Head of Section - Recovery and Tyres, sued for Kshs 1,413,750/= in notice pay and compensation, alleging wrongful and unlawful dismissal on 13th March 2023 over unsubstantiated theft allegations. The Respondent contended that on 14th December 2022, during the authorised loading of 30 used tyre tubes sold to a private buyer, 63 extra usable tubes were siphoned out, and that the Claimant, as section head, authorised or condoned their removal as 'takataka' and failed in his custodial responsibility. The Respondent asserted a valid reason and due process. The court framed three issues: valid and fair reason, fair procedure, and entitlement to reliefs. On the first, relying on the police report, the court found the Claimant had by telephone authorised disposal of tubes described as 'takataka' which were in fact usable, and that as Head of Section the buck stopped with him even if not directly involved in the theft; his non-prosecution by police did not absolve him from negligence. Under Section 43(2) of the Employment Act, the employer's genuine belief on a balance of probability sufficed. On procedure, the show cause letter, the Claimant's response, and the disciplinary hearing of 11th March 2023, at which he was accompanied by a colleague of his choice, satisfied Section 41. The termination was therefore neither unfair nor unlawful, and the claim was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs. The court, noting terminal dues were not evident as paid, directed the Claimant to attend the Respondent's offices for clearance, payment of terminal dues and collection of his Certificate of Service. Judgment was delivered by Stella Rutto, J, at Nairobi on 28th February 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Valid and fair reason for termination

Holding

The Respondent proved on a balance of probabilities a valid and fair reason based on the Claimant's conduct and negligence as Head of Section - Recovery and Tyres.

Reasoning

The court found the Claimant, by telephone, authorised disposal of tubes described as 'takataka' which were in fact usable, enabling the theft of 63 extra tubes. Despite not being directly involved, as Head of Section the buck stopped with him. Non-prosecution by police did not absolve him from negligence. Under Section 43(2), the employer's genuine belief on a balance of probability sufficed.

p. 6
02

Fair procedure under Section 41 of the Employment Act

Holding

The procedure met the minimum requirements of a fair hearing: show cause letter, response, disciplinary hearing with right to be accompanied.

Reasoning

The Claimant received a detailed show cause letter dated 23rd February 2023, responded on 2nd March 2023, was invited to a disciplinary hearing on 11th March 2023 with the right to be accompanied by a colleague, witness or translator, and appeared before the panel. He was informed of his appeal right but did not pursue it.

p. 7
03

Entitlement to reliefs

Holding

The reliefs of notice pay and compensation were refused as the Claimant failed to prove his case; only terminal dues clearance was directed.

Reasoning

Since both substantive and procedural fairness were established, the termination was neither unfair nor unlawful, and the claims for Kshs 1,413,750/= in notice pay and compensation could not stand. The court noted terminal dues were not evidenced as paid and directed clearance and payment.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Under Section 43(2) of the Employment Act, the reason for termination is what the employer genuinely believed to exist at the time, proved on a balance of probability.
  • An employee's failure to be charged criminally does not absolve him from disciplinary liability for negligence given his level of responsibility.
  • A section head bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring only authorised goods leave the employer's premises.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant will attend the Respondent's offices for clearance and payment of his terminal dues and collection of his Certificate of Service.
  2. 2.The rest of the claims are dismissed with an order that each party bears its own costs.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 43(2)
  • Employment ActSection 45(2)(c)
  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B

Cases cited (2)

  • Matesho vs Newton
    (Cause 9 of 2019) (2022) KEELRC 1554 (KLR) (29 July 2022)
  • National Bank of Kenya vs Anthony Njue John
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (first-instance employment claim)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lijoodi v Transmara Sugar Company Ltd (Cause E695 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 667 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E695 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/667/eng@2025-02-28

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