G4S Kenya Limited v Ochieng (Appeal E049 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 945 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed an employer can dismiss a guard for negligence, but slashed the award because the employer's unsigned disciplinary records couldn't prove fair procedure.
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 appellant had a valid and fair reason to summarily dismiss the respondent
- 2.Whether the appellant accorded the respondent a fair procedure before dismissal
- 3.The effect of the respondent's acquittal in the criminal case on the internal disciplinary process
- 4.Whether the reliefs awarded by the trial court (salary in lieu of notice, damages for loss of employment, unpaid October 2021 salary and gratuity) were justified
Key legal issues
#Validity of reason for summary dismissal
The appellant had substantive justification: the respondent was negligent and dishonest as a night guard
Evidence from the criminal trial and before the trial court showed items were stolen from the site the respondent guarded. The respondent's claim that he patrolled all night contradicted his colleague's account, and the theft went undetected until the day guard arrived, indicating carelessness. His insistence on having patrolled rendered him dishonest.
Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
The procedure fell below the fair threshold because the minutes and investigation report were unsigned and unverifiable
Section 41 of the Employment Act is mandatory. The minutes of the hearing and the investigation report were unsigned and thus had no probative value, leaving the employer without verifiable evidence that the respondent was accorded an opportunity to defend himself, that his colleague made representations, or that documents were availed to him.
Effect of acquittal in criminal case on dismissal
The trial magistrate erred in treating the acquittal and parallel disciplinary process as rendering the dismissal unlawful
Citing Andrew Maina Githinji, James Mugera Igati and Geoffrey Kiragu Njogu, the court held that disciplinary and criminal processes are independent, with different standards of proof, and an acquittal does not bind an employer. The trial court's findings of multiple trials and prejudice were wrong.
Reliefs: compensation quantum, notice pay and gratuity
12 months' compensation reduced to 3 months' gross salary; notice pay and gratuity set aside
The award was styled as damages rather than compensation under Section 49(1)(c) and was unjustified and unexplained. Having found the dismissal substantively justified, notice pay was untenable under Section 44(1). Gratuity lacked any contractual or CBA basis.
Legal principles established
#- Criminal proceedings and internal disciplinary proceedings arising from the same facts are independent; an acquittal does not bind the employer
- Unsigned documents lack ownership and authenticity and carry no probative value
- A valid termination requires both substantive justification and fair procedure
- Availing documents relied on by the employer to the employee before a disciplinary hearing is integral to the right to fair hearing
Court orders
#- 1.Award of one month's salary in lieu of notice is set aside
- 2.Compensation for unlawful dismissal is reduced to the equivalent of 3 months gross salary, Kshs.82,669.47
- 3.Gratuity award of Kshs.1,064,046.35 is set aside
- 4.Other awards are upheld
- 5.Parties shall bear own costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court (Winam)
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court from the trial Magistrate's judgment
Relief refused
#One month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs.27,566.49)
Summary dismissal under Section 44(1) of the Employment Act permits dismissal without notice once justified
Gratuity
No contractual term or CBA clause established entitlement
Unpaid salary for October 2021
No services rendered in that month; trial court's declinature upheld
Costs
Parties shall bear own costs of the appeal
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.
In conclusion, the appeal is partially successful as follows: a. Award of one month's salary in lieu of notice is set aside.
Compensation for unlawful dismissal is reduced to the equivalent of 3 months gross salary, Kshs.82,669.47
Gratuity award of Kshs.1,064,046.35 is set aside.
Parties shall bear own costs of the appeal.
It is the finding of the court the respondent was not only careless in the manner in which he discharged his duties, but dishonest too.
It trite that an unsigned document lacks ownership and authenticity and has no probative value in a court of law.
The institution of criminal proceedings is not a bar to civil proceedings based in similar facts
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the respondent 'had served for over 28 years' yet the claim pleaded employment commencing on 2nd June 2006 (approximately 15 years) and the trial court awarded gratuity 'for 15 years'
The trial court's award of gratuity is recorded as 'Gratuity for 15 years Kshs.771,861.84' but the final orders set aside a 'Gratuity award of Kshs.1,064,046.35', an unexplained discrepancy in quantum
The memorandum of appeal alleges deployment on '17th September, 2024' while the narrative elsewhere places the deployment and events in September 2021; the date appears to be an error in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "G4S Kenya Limited v Ochieng (Appeal E049 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 945 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/945/eng@2025-03-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.