Ochieng v DHL Supply Chain Kenya (Cause 270 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1312 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled DHL fairly dismissed an HR assistant who secretly helped recruit her cousin, so she lost all claims and damages.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an employment relationship existed between the parties (1st issue)
- 2.Whether termination of the claimant's employment took place (2nd issue)
- 3.Whether the termination of the contract of employment was unfair (3rd issue)
- 4.Whether the claims for declarations on unfair job grading, under-remuneration and discrimination were established (4th issue)
- 5.What orders and costs should issue on the claims and prayers made (5th issue)
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair
The termination was not unfair; the respondent complied with section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007, and the reason for termination (breach of the conflict of interest clause 24) existed and was fair under sections 43 and 45
The claimant received a notice to show cause setting out the allegations, responded, attended a disciplinary hearing accompanied by representatives, received the termination decision with one month's notice, and appealed, though the appeal was dismissed. Her own testimony confirmed knowledge of the allegations and admitted non-disclosure of her cousin's candidacy. The conflict of interest allegation was the substantial reason for termination and was established on the evidence.
Whether the claimant was unfairly graded, underpaid and discriminated against
The claims of unfair grading, under-remuneration and discrimination were not established at all
The claimant provided no exhibit showing her grading was changed and performed duties within her agreed contractual job description. She confirmed a 10% salary increment upon redesignation. Alleged discrimination compared to colleagues lacked a correlating comparator, as no evidence of the particulars and circumstances of the alleged similar cases was provided.
Whether the termination letter going beyond the allegations in the notice to show cause vitiated the termination
No; the allegation on conflict of interest was established and was the substantial reason for termination, so the submission that she was terminated on reasons for which she had no chance to exculpate was unjustified
The court found the conflict of interest allegation was established and was the substantial reason for termination. The claimant participated in all steps of recruiting her cousin, interviewed five other candidates and stepped out only when the cousin was interviewed. Her apology was considered when she was paid final dues instead of summary dismissal.
Legal principles established
#- Compliance with section 41 of the Employment Act is demonstrated where the employee receives a notice to show cause with particulars, responds, attends a disciplinary hearing, receives the termination decision and is offered an appeal
- Oral instructions cannot be relied upon to defeat the express written contract of employment regarding duties and grading
- A claim of discrimination requires a correlating comparator whose true particulars, circumstances and facts are established by evidence
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the respondent for dismissal of the suit
- 2.No orders on costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (sections 41, 43 and 45 applied)
Relief refused
#Declarations of unfair termination, unfair job grading, under-remuneration and discrimination
The termination complied with sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007; grading, pay and discrimination claims were not established
Payment of arrears of Kshs 15,084,233.56 for acting capacity duties, 12 months' gross salary compensation, loss of future expected income and general damages
These flowed from the failed declarations on unfair termination, grading and discrimination and collapsed with them
Costs of the claim
Although costs follow the event, the respondent delayed in some steps of the process and the claimant had fully contributed to her termination
Costs
No orders on costs - each party to bear their own costs, because although costs follow the event, there were delays in some steps by the respondent and the claimant had fully contributed to her termination
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 judgment is hereby entered for the respondent for dismissal of the suit with no orders on costs.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the reason for termination exited as genuine as at termination per section 43 of the Employment Act, 2007 and the reason was fair per section 45 of the Act
Oral instructions the claimant invoked to show she was given duties beyond her agreed role cannot be relied upon to defeat the express written contract.
The alleged discrimination in that respect lacks a correlating comparator because the evidence of the true particulars, circumstances, and fact of existence of the other alleged cases as being similar to the case the claimant confronted was not provided.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number or neutral citation of the suit
The Memorandum of Defence is dated 23.07.2020, predating the termination letter dated 06.05.2020 and the dismissal of the appeal on 05.06.2020 as narrated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ochieng v DHL Supply Chain Kenya (Cause 270 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1312 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Amended Memorandum of Claim dated 30.11.2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1312/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.