Sang v Siginon Group Limited (Cause 613 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 724 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 reasons for the claimant's termination were fair and valid
- 2.Whether the procedure leading to termination complied with section 41 of the Employment Act
- 3.Whether the claimant was discriminated against on account of her gender contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of termination
Respondent substantially complied with section 41; no prejudice from belated particulars
The claimant received a show cause letter, responded, was given requested information, attended the disciplinary hearing, and the panel was constituted per her demands with the Board Chairperson recusing. She chose not to appeal. The court found the procedure fair and any belated provision of particulars non-prejudicial since the information was within her personal knowledge.
Validity of reasons for termination
The two reasons - omission of Eco Bank service from the CV and failure to provide employment history per direction - were fair and valid
The claimant testified she worked at Eco Bank for three months and omitted that from her CV at recruitment, and confirmed she neglected to provide her employment history as directed by 18.07.2019. The respondent's witness confirmed the reasons. The court found the reasons fair and valid under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Alleged gender discrimination
Discrimination claim failed for want of evidence of comparators
The claimant alleged she was singled out as a woman while male counterparts with incomplete records were not disciplined. The court found she provided no evidence of such men or that no disciplinary proceedings were preferred against them, and that she was terminated for her own misconduct, not her gender. The discrimination claim collapsed as unjustified.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial compliance with section 41 notice and hearing procedure suffices; belated provision of particulars is not prejudicial where the information is within the employee's own knowledge
- A claimant alleging gender discrimination must adduce evidence of comparators treated differently
- Terminal dues per the termination letter are payable even absent a counterclaim
Court orders
#- 1.The respondent to compute and pay the claimant per the termination namely monthly salary up to 13.09.2019
- 2.Payment of 3-months' salary in lieu of notice
- 3.Payment for leave days earned and not taken
- 4.Payment of pension in accordance with Scheme Rules
- 5.Each party to bear own costs of the suit
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
Relief refused
#Declaration that dismissal was unprocedural, unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional
Court found procedure and reasons both fair
General damages for discrimination
Claimant failed the test for establishing discrimination
Reinstatement and permanent injunction
Dismissal upheld; suit otherwise determined
12 months' compensation for unfair termination
Termination found fair and valid
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the suit.
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.
The Court finds that the respondent substantially complied with the procedure on notice and hearing per section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007.
It is not shown that her employment was terminated on account of her being a woman.
The respondent to compute and pay the claimant per the termination namely monthly salary up to 13.09.2019; 3-months' salary in lieu of notice; leave days earned and not taken; and, pension in accordance with Scheme Rules.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states termination letter was dated 13.09.2021 in one passage but 13.09.2019 elsewhere
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sang v Siginon Group Limited (Cause 613 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 724 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/724/eng@2025-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.