Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedClaim dated 20th August, 2021· [2025] KEELRC 910 (KLR)

Marakia v Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (Cause E842 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 910 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 March 2025
CBC. N. BAARI
3,199 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court upheld KBC's dismissal of a finance manager because the employer followed fair procedure and had a strong audit-backed reason.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, formerly Acting Finance and Administration Manager of the Respondent, sued for compensation for unfair termination and unpaid terminal dues after his summary dismissal on 26th April 2021 for gross negligence, improper conduct and misappropriation of Kshs. 6,136,663. The dismissal followed an internal audit covering 1st July 2019 to 29th February 2020, a show cause letter dated 18th May 2020, interdiction, a disciplinary hearing before an Adhoc Staff Management Committee on 2nd and 9th September 2020, and an appeal declined by the Board of Directors. The Respondent denied unfairness and raised a preliminary point on notice under Section 46 of the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation Act. The court framed two issues: whether the dismissal was unfair, and whether the Claimant deserved the reliefs sought. On procedure, the court found the Claimant was given charges, an opportunity to respond, a hearing he attended (admitted on cross-examination), an offer of representation, and an appeal whose determination, though delayed, was not substantially unfair. On substance, the court relied on an unchallenged audit report showing irregular receipt of Corporation funds during the Claimant's tenure, and held the findings of gross negligence, abuse of office and questionable integrity justified dismissal. The court found the dismissal both procedurally and substantively fair. The prayers for notice pay, remainder of contract and general damages collapsed. The court ordered issuance of a certificate of service within 7 days, dismissed the rest of the claim, and made no orders on costs. Judgment was delivered on 21st March 2025 by C. N. Baari, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant was unfairly dismissed

Holding

Dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair

Reasoning

The Claimant was issued a show cause letter spelling out the charges, responded to it, appeared before a disciplinary committee (as admitted on cross-examination), was offered a representative which he declined, and lodged an appeal which was heard by the Appeals Committee and Board of Directors. On substance, an unchallenged audit report showed the Claimant, as Acting Finance and Administration Manager, received Corporation funds irregularly. The court found gross negligence of duty, abuse of office and questionable integrity fair grounds for a reasonable employer to dismiss.

p. 7
02

Whether the Claimant deserves the reliefs sought

Holding

Only the certificate of service was granted; the rest of the claim was dismissed

Reasoning

Having found the dismissal fair, the prayers for notice pay, remainder of contract and general damages collapsed. The Claimant remained statutorily entitled to a certificate of service, which the court ordered issued within 7 days.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • A dismissal is fair where the employer meets both the procedural fairness and substantive justification standards
  • Procedural fairness requires informing the employee of charges, opportunity to prepare and be heard, and consideration of representations before dismissal
  • Burden of proving unfair termination rests with the employee while justifying grounds for termination rests with the employer per Section 47(5) of the Employment Act
  • An unchallenged audit report forming the basis of dismissal may ground substantively fair termination

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Respondent to issue a certificate of service to the Claimant within 7 days of the judgment
  2. 2.Dismissal of the rest of the Claimant's claim
  3. 3.No orders on costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 47(5)
  • Employment ActSection 43
  • Kenya Broadcasting Corporation ActSection 46
  • Code of RegulationsRegulation K 9(ii)(e)
  • KBC Code of Regulations

Cases cited (8)

  • Zipporah Nyambura Maina vs Kenya Association of Manufacturers
    [2022] eKLR
  • Nampak Corrugated Wadeville vs Khoza
    (1998) ZALAC 24
  • Judicial Service Commission vs Gladys Boss Shollei & Another
    [2014] eKLR
  • Anthony Mkala Chitavi v. Malindi Water & Sewerage Company Ltd
    [2013] eKLR
  • Silvester Malei Kyengo v Kenya Meat Commission
    (2019) eKLR
  • Kenfreight (EA) Ltd v Benson K. Nguti
    [2016] eKLR
  • Reuben Ikatwa & 17 others v Commanding Officer British Army Training Unit Kenya & another
    Nyeri Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2016
  • Charles Musungu Odana v Kenya Ports Authority
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (termination of employment claim)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Marakia v Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (Cause E842 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 910 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Claim dated 20th August, 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/910/eng@2025-03-21

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