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 AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELRC 964 (KLR)

Kimutai v County Government of Kericho (Cause E020 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 964 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 March 2025
JRJames Rika
1,426 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 awarded an advisor over Kshs. 2 million after his county government employer fired him through a fake disciplinary process.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant was employed as Economic Advisor to the Respondent Governor on 16th January 2023, on a 5-year contract expiring in 2027, with a gross monthly salary of Kshs. 162,430 and gratuity at 31% of basic salary payable to a retirement benefits scheme. He received a letter to show cause on allegations of absenteeism in September 2023, and his contract was terminated by notice dated 19th September 2023. He sought an injunction restraining termination until his expected retirement date, alternatively compensation for unfair and unlawful termination, gratuity, underpayment, salary for 18 days, costs and interest. The Respondent, though filing a Statement of Response, did not appear at the hearing. The Court found the Claimant's Statement of Claim lacked his name but overlooked the omission in the interest of justice. The injunction was declined as redundant, termination having taken effect. The underpayment and 18-day salary claims failed for lack of specificity and supporting instruments. On fairness, the Court found the disciplinary process was a charade driven solely by the Chief of Stafi, who had pre-decided the outcome before the show-cause letter, generated a fabricated disciplinary report, and issued the termination without regard to fairness, contrary to Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. Termination was declared unfair and unlawful. The Claimant was awarded gratuity of Kshs. 376,433 and 10 months' gross salary as compensation (Kshs. 1,624,430), totalling Kshs. 2,000,863, with costs and interest at court rates from the date of judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Fairness of termination

Holding

Termination was unfair and unlawful under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act

Reasoning

The Respondent alleged habitual absenteeism and a disciplinary hearing on 11th September 2023, but the Chief of Stafi had already recommended discontinuation by Memo dated 14th August 2023, before the letter to show cause. No evidence of a disciplinary hearing, invitation, or committee existed. The Chief of Stafi initiated charges, conducted the process singly, and issued the termination documents. The Respondent did not appear in Court to defend its documents. Procedure was shambolic and there was no valid reason for termination.

p. 3
02

Compensation for unfair termination

Holding

Claimant granted the equivalent of 10 months' gross salary in compensation at Kshs. 1,624,430

Reasoning

The Claimant was a peasant farmer who had not secured gainful employment after termination. He did not cause or contribute to the termination. He worked approximately 10 months and was denied a service period of 4 years, having expected to work until 10th September 2027. Terminal benefits promised were not paid. The Court granted the equivalent of 10 months' gross salary.

p. 4
03

Gratuity entitlement

Holding

Gratuity payable at 31% of Kshs. 121,430 basic salary over 10 months worked, at Kshs. 376,433

Reasoning

Under the contract, gratuity was payable to a Retirement Benefits Scheme of the Claimant's choice, not directly to him. However, the notice of termination of 19th September 2023 informed the Claimant that the Respondent would pay gratuity at 31% of basic salary for the period worked. The Court found no reason to deny the prayer as offered.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Termination without a valid disciplinary process and without compliance with Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act is unfair and unlawful
  • A disciplinary process conducted singly by the employee's supervisor, who initiated the charges and generated the report, is a sham

Court orders

#
  1. 1.It is declared that termination was unfair and unlawful
  2. 2.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant gratuity at Kshs. 376,433 and compensation for unfair and unlawful termination, equivalent of 10 months' salary at Kshs. 1,624,430 - total Kshs. 2,000,863
  3. 3.Costs to the Claimant
  4. 4.Interest allowed at court rate, from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Sections 41, 43 and 45)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kimutai v County Government of Kericho (Cause E020 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 964 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/964/eng@2025-03-28

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