Gichuki v Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceutical Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E228 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 691 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled GSK unfairly dismissed an employee, ordering Kshs 2.62 million compensation because the disciplinary process was never completed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there were valid reasons to warrant claimant's dismissal
- 2.Whether the claimant was subjected to due process
- 3.Whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent had valid reasons to terminate the claimant's employment for falsifying a call on the Veeva system
No valid reasons were established; the process was inconclusive and the specific call said to have been falsified was never identified or proved.
The termination letter did not specify which call was falsified. The disciplinary hearing of 6th February 2018 left questions unresolved, further investigations were promised and continued after the hearing, and their findings were never shared with the claimant or subjected to a further hearing. Under section 43, the employer must prove the reasons it genuinely believed to exist; an incomplete process could not establish valid reasons.
Whether the claimant was accorded due process under section 41 of the Employment Act
The disciplinary process was inconclusive and half-baked; the claimant was never recalled to hear the results of the post-hearing investigations, violating section 41.
The claimant attended a disciplinary hearing on 6th February 2018, but issues she raised were referred for further review and the commercial excellence manager was to give feedback. The investigation continued while she was on maternity leave and she was served with a termination letter two days after resuming work, without being recalled to respond to the further findings. This fell short of the hearing envisaged by section 41.
What remedies the claimant is entitled to
Compensation of ten months' gross salary under section 49, plus costs and interest; the termination two days after return from maternity leave was callous and inhumane.
Having found both substantive and procedural unfairness, the court exercised discretion under section 49 to award the equivalent of ten months' salary (Kshs 2,620,000 less statutory deductions), taking into account the timing of the dismissal immediately upon her return from maternity leave, and awarded costs with interest from the date of judgment.
Legal principles established
#- Under section 43 of the Employment Act, the employer bears the burden of proving the reason or reasons for termination, failing which the termination is deemed unfair under section 45.
- Where a disciplinary hearing is adjourned for further investigations, the employee must be recalled and presented with the findings of those investigations and given an opportunity to respond before termination; failure to do so renders the process incomplete and unfair under section 41.
Court orders
#- 1.Respondent to pay the claimant compensation of 10 months' salary calculated at 10 x Kshs 262,000 = Kshs 2,620,000 less statutory deductions
- 2.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of judgment
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, 2007 (unfair termination claim); no specific constitutional or statutory jurisdictional provision is cited in the judgment.
Relief refused
#General damages for victimization, harassment, mistreatment, intimidation and humiliation as a separate head
The court awarded compensation under section 49 for unfair termination only; no separate damages for the general mistreatment heads were awarded.
Claim for salary/earnings until retirement (Kshs 88,186,560) and associated benefits
No award made; the court limited remedies to statutory compensation for unfair termination.
Costs
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment.
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.
Having established that the respondents did not establish they had valid reason to terminate the claimant and that due process was not followed, I return the verdict that the claimant's termination was unfair and unjustified.
The failure to conclude the hearing and just serve the claimant with a termination letter 2 days after resuming from maternity leave is a pointer to an inconclusive process which could not have established the existence of valid reasons leading to the claimants dismissal.
It is unfortunate that the respondents continued investigating the claim after a disciplinary hearing and did not call the claimant back to share their findings and ask her to respond.
I find 10 month's salary as compensation would be adequate in the circumstances = 10x Kshs 262,000= Kshs 2,620,000/- Less statutory deductions.
The respondents will also pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates w.e.f the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number on its face; the number is inferred from references within the judgment to this very suit (e.g., mention of the claimant's filings 'in ELRC E228/2021' and a Memorandum of Claim dated 11th March 2021 answered by a response dated 10th December 2021).
The judgment is internally inconsistent as to the claimant's salary: the claim states Kshs 262,460 gross, the respondent admits Kshs 260,000, and the court's final computation uses Kshs 262,000.
The Memorandum of Claim is dated 11th March 2021 but the Statement of Response refers to a Memorandum of Claim dated 24th May 2021.
The respondent's submissions describe the termination letter as dated 9th August 2018, while the letter itself and the rest of the judgment date it 8th August 2018.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gichuki v Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceutical Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E228 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 691 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC E228 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/691/eng@2025-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.