Barasa v Kenya Forestry Research Institute (Cause E134 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1086 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled KEFRI followed a fair reason to fire a supply chain director but skipped proper disciplinary steps, awarding him six months' salary.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant's termination was procedurally fair
Procedurally unfair - no disciplinary hearing was held (only a 'face to face interview') and the Claimant was not allowed a representative of his choice.
The court applied Section 41 of the Employment Act and the four elements of procedural fairness from Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui. The interdiction letter sufficed as notification of charges, but the hearing invitation did not disclose it was a disciplinary process, and the Claimant was not afforded a representative. Citing Mary Chemweno Kiptui v Kenya Pipeline, failure to follow these mandatory provisions renders the outcome unfair.
Whether the reasons for termination were substantively valid
Substantively fair - the Respondent had valid, fair and justified reasons to terminate.
On cross-examination the Claimant admitted there was no written approval for cancelling or re-advertising the tender, that he gave a professional opinion leading to awards in excess of the approved budget, and that the budget rose from Kshs.35M to Kshs.73M against an approved Kshs.54M with no contract variation. No evidence showed approval from the Respondent or NEMA for substituting gabions with fencing. Applying the range of reasonable responses test, the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable employer responses.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation and at what level
Entitled to compensation for procedural unfairness, assessed at six months' salary of Kshs.2,024,400, not the maximum twelve months.
A finding of unfair termination entitles the Claimant to compensation. However, an award of the maximum twelve months must be based on sound judicial principles. Since the termination was unfair only on procedure and the reasons were proved on a balance of probability, the Claimant contributed to his own termination, making six months' salary sufficient compensation.
Legal principles established
#- An invitation to a 'face to face interview' is not the same as a disciplinary hearing under Section 41 of the Employment Act; the employee must be informed he faces a disciplinary process with possible termination.
- An employer must allow an employee to have a representative of his choice present during disciplinary proceedings; failure renders the process procedurally unfair.
- A finding of procedural unfairness with substantively valid reasons warrants reduced compensation because the employee contributed to his own termination.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Claimant's termination was procedurally unfair
- 2.The Respondent to pay the Claimant 6 months' salary as compensation for the unfair termination at Kshs.2,024,400
- 3.The Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (claim for unfair termination)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Focus Logistics Limited v Otieno (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E230 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1931 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1931 (KLR)30 Jun 2025followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Barasa v Kenya Forestry Research Institute (Cause E134 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1086 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (claim dated 15th January 2021, amended 9th March 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1086/eng@2025-04-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.