Mukabi v Program for Apppropriate Technology in Health (PATH) Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E428 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1659 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled PATH had valid reasons to dismiss an executive, but its flawed disciplinary process made the termination unfair, costing it KES 8.4 million.
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 termination of the Claimant's employment was wrongful, unfair and unlawful
- 2.Whether the Respondent had valid reasons to warrant the termination of the Claimant's employment contract
- 3.Whether the Respondent followed due process in effecting the termination
- 4.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Memorandum of Claim
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent had valid reasons to terminate the Claimant's employment
Yes - the Claimant's admitted failure to disclose his parenting relationship with Lilian Owoko while participating in her hiring and supervising her breached the Respondent's Conflict of Interest, Staffing and related policies
The court found it established that the Claimant had a child with Ms Owoko, sat on the interview panel that selected her without evidence of disclosure, and supervised her during her employment. The Claimant admitted the supervisory relationship and non-disclosure in his disclosure forms. The court held the Respondent therefore had a valid reason warranting termination, distinguishing this ground from the sexual harassment allegations which were inconclusive.
Whether the Respondent followed a fair procedure in effecting the termination
No - the disciplinary process was flawed because the Claimant, while suspended and barred from contacting staff, could not call witnesses or obtain evidence, and the show cause letter simultaneously scheduled the hearing, indicating a premeditated outcome
Although reasons were valid, the court found the process failed the section 45(2)(c) test. The Claimant was suspended on terms prohibiting contact with colleagues and had system access deactivated, yet was expected to gather evidence and witnesses. The same letter issuing the further show cause also fixed the hearing date. The court therefore held the termination unfair on procedural grounds.
What remedies flow from the unfair termination
Six months' salary as compensation, a certificate of service, costs and interest
The court balanced the valid substantive reasons against the procedural failure, and noting that the flawed disciplinary process ruined the Claimant's career, awarded six months' salary as compensation rather than the twelve months claimed, plus a certificate of service, costs and interest. The claim for Article 41 unfair labour practice damages was not awarded.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination to be fair there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness
- A termination of employment is unfair under section 45(2) of the Employment Act if the employer fails to prove a valid and fair reason and a fair procedure
- Issuing a show cause letter and scheduling a disciplinary hearing in the same letter indicates a premeditated position by the employer
- An employee who is suspended and barred from contacting staff cannot effectively call witnesses, rendering the disciplinary process flawed
Court orders
#- 1.Compensation of 6 months' salary being 6 x Kshs 1,407,937 = Kshs 8,447,622 less statutory deductions for unfair termination
- 2.Respondent to issue the Claimant with a certificate of service
- 3.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of judgment
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 Article 162(2) of the Constitution and the Employment Act (inferred; not expressly cited in the excerpt)
Relief refused
#12 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination (KES 16,895,244)
Court awarded only 6 months' salary, reasoning that the procedural failure ruined the Claimant's career
Damages for unfair labour practice of requiring the Claimant to self-investigate contrary to Article 41 of the Constitution
Not granted; the claim succeeded only on unfair termination and the reliefs ordered
Costs
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment.
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.
Having found that the respondents failed to follow due process whilst carrying out their disciplinary process, I find the claimant’s termination was unfair and in the circumstances of the case, I find for claimant in terms of the breach and in view of the fact that the failure to follow a proper disciplinary action ruined his career, I find 6 months’ salary as compensation apt
I also order he be issued with a certificate of service. The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgment.
For termination of employment to past the test of fairness, there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
The fact that there was a show cause letter and a scheduled hearing in the same letter indicate a pre meditated position by the respondent despite any response that may be aduced from the show cause letter.
Issues in the judgment
#The compensation figure contains a typographical error: 'Kshs a8,447,622/-' though the arithmetic 6 x 1,407,937 equals 8,447,622
The judgment inconsistently refers to Lilian Owoko variously as 'Ms. Owoko', 'subject 3' and 'Lillian/Lilian Owoko' and the prayer sought is described as termination while the Respondent calls it summary dismissal for gross misconduct
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mukabi v Program for Apppropriate Technology in Health (PATH) Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E428 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1659 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1659/eng@2025-06-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.