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 AllowedEmployment and Labour Relations Court Claim dated 3rd April 2018 (Nairobi)· [2025] KEELRC 940 (KLR)

Oriyo v Adsite Limited (Cause 452 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 940 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 March 2025
LNLINNET NDOLO
1,481 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that firing a driver without a disciplinary hearing was unfair and awarded him Kshs. 188,500 plus costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a driver employed by the Respondent, was summarily dismissed on 15th February 2018 by letter citing violent conduct towards a fellow employee, Ankit Patel. He sued, contending that the termination was wrongful and unfair because no valid reason was given, no notice issued, and he was denied a disciplinary hearing. The Respondent maintained that the dismissal was justified by the alleged attack on the supervisor and that the Claimant had received verbal warnings. The court identified two issues: whether the dismissal was lawful and fair, and whether the Claimant was entitled to the remedies sought. Applying Section 41 of the Employment Act and the Court of Appeal's decision in Pius Machafu Isindu v Lavington Security Guards Limited, the court held that the mandatory notification-and-hearing process before dismissal had been bypassed. The Respondent's attempt to convene a disciplinary hearing after termination, by notice dated 21st February 2018, was held to be of no consequence since an employer loses disciplinary control once the employment relationship ends. The allegations against the Claimant were accordingly not proved at the shop floor, and the dismissal was found wrongful and unfair. On remedies, the court awarded three months' salary in compensation, one month's salary in lieu of notice, salary for 15 days worked in February 2018, leave pay for 15 days, and house allowance for 10 months, adopting a consolidated monthly salary of Kshs. 29,900 since the pay slips showed no housing element contrary to Section 31 of the Employment Act. Total award: Kshs. 188,500, with interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full. The Claimant was also granted a certificate of service and costs of the case.

Key legal issues

#
01

Procedural fairness in summary dismissal

Holding

The dismissal was wrongful and unfair because the Claimant was not subjected to any disciplinary proceedings prior to dismissal as mandated by Section 41 of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

The Respondent summarily dismissed the Claimant by letter dated 15th February 2018 for violent conduct but never subjected him to disciplinary proceedings before dismissal. The post-termination invitation to a disciplinary hearing on 1st March 2018 was of no consequence because disciplinary control ends once employment has terminated. The conflicting accounts of the 15th February 2018 incident could only have been resolved through a proper hearing, which never occurred.

p. 4
02

Validity of reasons for termination

Holding

The allegations of violent conduct levelled against the Claimant were not proved at the shop floor as required in law.

Reasoning

The parties gave conflicting accounts of the disagreement with Ankit Patel, with the Respondent alleging an attack and the Claimant alleging manipulation of the trip system. Since no disciplinary process was conducted before the dismissal, there was no forum in which the allegations could be tested and proved, rendering the dismissal substantively and procedurally defective.

p. 4
03

Remedies for wrongful and unfair dismissal

Holding

The Claimant was awarded 3 months' salary in compensation, one month's notice pay, salary for 15 days worked, leave pay and house allowance, plus interest, certificate of service and costs.

Reasoning

In assessing compensation the court considered the Claimant's length of service and the Respondent's failure to afford him a hearing. The Respondent adduced no evidence of payment of the February salary and accrued leave, so those claims succeeded. Pay slips showed no housing element, breaching Section 31 of the Employment Act, so the house allowance claim was allowed and the consolidated monthly salary fixed at Kshs. 29,900 for tabulation.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Once employment has terminated, the employer loses disciplinary control and cannot summon a former employee to a disciplinary hearing.
  • An employer must subject an employee to a disciplinary process under Section 41 of the Employment Act before summary dismissal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment in favour of the Claimant for Kshs. 188,500 comprising 3 months' salary in compensation (Kshs. 89,700), 1 month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 29,900), salary for 15 days worked in February 2018 (Kshs. 14,950), leave pay for 15 days (Kshs. 14,950) and house allowance for 10 months (Kshs. 39,000)
  2. 2.Interest on the decretal amount at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
  3. 3.Claimant to be issued with a certificate of service
  4. 4.Respondent to pay costs of the case

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41(1) and (2)
  • Employment ActSection 42(1)
  • Employment ActSection 43
  • Employment ActSection 44(3) and (4)
  • Employment ActSection 45
  • Employment ActSection 47(5)
  • Employment ActSection 31

Cases cited (1)

  • Pius Machafu Isindu v Lavington Security Guards Limited
    [2017] 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, "Oriyo v Adsite Limited (Cause 452 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 940 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Employment and Labour Relations Court Claim dated 3rd April 2018 (Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/940/eng@2025-03-27

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