Onyango v Riley Falcon Security Services (Cause E058 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 855 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that firing a security guard for being 22 minutes late, with no prior disciplinary record, was unfair, awarding him six months' salary.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substantive justification for termination
Termination for a 22-minute lateness plus arrogance, without a prior disciplinary record, lacked a valid and fair reason
The court applied the objective reasonable-employer test (band of reasonable responses) while noting the partly subjective Section 43(2) test. The supervisor did not testify; the disciplinary minutes gave no reasons; the claimant's written apology showed remorse; and the allegations did not amount to negligence. Comparators involving longer absences showed dismissal was disproportionate.
Procedural fairness under Section 41
Respondent complied with Section 41 procedure
The claimant received a notice to show cause, responded, was invited to a disciplinary hearing with notice of his right to be accompanied, attended, charges were read and he responded. The uncontested minutes confirmed this process; the claimant did not contest that he declined to appeal.
Compensation under Section 49(1)(c)
Six months' gross salary awarded as fair compensation
The court considered the claimant's approximately 22 years of service and clean disciplinary record in his favour, but reduced the award because he refused to appeal and substantially contributed to his own termination.
Proof of monetary claims (off days, public holidays, house allowance, gratuity, general damages)
All declined for lack of particulars or proof, or statute bar
The court held that particularised evidence is required for each monetary head; payslips contradicted the holiday and house allowance claims; gratuity had no contractual basis; and general damages lacked any evidence of mistreatment.
Legal principles established
#- For termination to be fair, there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness
- A brief one-off absence (22 minutes) without habitual conduct does not constitute a valid and fair reason for termination
- The requirements of valid reason and fair procedure under Section 45 are conjunctive and must be proved separately
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that termination of the claimant's employment by the respondent was unfair
- 2.Equivalent of six (6) months gross salary, Kshs.105,079.38
- 3.Costs of this suit
- 4.Interest on the compensation award from date of judgment till payment in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Sections 41, 43, 45, 49 applied)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyango v Riley Falcon Security Services (Cause E058 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 855 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E058 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/855/eng@2025-03-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.