G4S Kenya Limited v Busuru (Appeal E048 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 958 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cut a security guard's unfair dismissal award because his employer's unsigned disciplinary records made the process unfair, but the dismissal itself was justified.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Valid and fair reason for summary dismissal
The appellant had a substantive justification; the respondent's failure to patrol and false confirmations that all was well amounted to negligence and dishonesty under Section 44(4)(c)
The respondent admitted he relied on the day guard's assurance, did not patrol the site, and falsely confirmed to the supervisor and alarm team that all was well. The court found this to be laxity, lack of care and outright negligence, and also dishonesty, justifying summary dismissal under Section 44(4)(c) of the Employment Act, notwithstanding the criminal acquittal.
Procedural fairness of the dismissal
The procedure fell below the fair threshold because the minutes and investigation report were unsigned and could not be relied upon; the employer lacked verifiable evidence of compliance with Section 41
The disciplinary minutes compiled by Mr. Stephen Owuor were unsigned and the witness could not recall attendees, so the employer lacked verifiable evidence that the respondent was accorded an opportunity to defend himself. Section 41 requirements are mandatory and unauthenticated documents have no probative value.
Effect of criminal proceedings on disciplinary process
The trial magistrate erred in holding that the disciplinary process was tied to the criminal trial; the two are independent
Relying on Rika J. in James Mugera Igati and Court of Appeal authority, the court held that the disciplinary process is a private process between employer and employee, independent of the criminal process, with different standards of proof, and an acquittal does not bind the employer. The trial court's finding of multiple trials was an error.
Reliefs: compensation quantum, notice pay and gratuity
12 months' compensation reduced to 3 months' gross salary; notice pay set aside; gratuity set aside for lack of factual/legal basis
The respondent substantially contributed to the dismissal and did not appeal it, though he served over 28 years with no recorded misconduct, justifying 3 months' compensation. Summary dismissal under Section 44(1) dispenses with notice. Gratuity lacked any contractual or CBA foundation.
Legal principles established
#- The institution of criminal proceedings is not a bar to disciplinary proceedings based on similar facts; an acquittal does not bind the employer
- An unsigned document has no probative value in a court of law
- Availing documents to be relied upon at a disciplinary hearing to the employee is an integral part of 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.77,857.05
- 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
- On appeal from
- Winam Principal Magistrate's Court (SPM ELRC)
- ELRC No. E10 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the subordinate court under the Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction (Employment Act and ELRC procedure)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "G4S Kenya Limited v Busuru (Appeal E048 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 958 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC No. E10 of 2023 (appeal from Winam SPM ELRC No. E10 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/958/eng@2025-03-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.