Kenani v Britam Life Assurance Company (Kenya) Limited (Cause E839 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1743 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a dismissed manager three months' salary because his employer upgraded his disciplinary charge after the hearing, breaking its own HR rules.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Valid and fair reason for termination
The Respondent proved on a balance of probabilities a valid and fair reason to commence termination, being the Claimant's breach of the Underwriting Manual in handling the cover for KDC 2X6X, exposing it to a potential loss of Kshs 6.4 million.
The Claimant did not deny issuing the annual comprehensive cover or failing to verify the valuation report, which was unsigned, unuploaded and made for Mayfair Insurance rather than the Respondent. Clause 9(a) of the Underwriting Manual required valuation for comprehensive covers. Given his designation as Branch Operations Team Leader, the Claimant was reasonably expected to be diligent; his omissions breached a fundamental procedure and rendered him liable to disciplinary action.
Fair procedure - escalation of charges and legitimate expectation
Although the Claimant was heard, the termination was procedurally unfair because the Respondent escalated the charge from procedure breach (sanctioned by warning) to gross negligence (sanctioned by dismissal) after the hearing, contrary to its own Human Resource Manual.
Section 41 of the Employment Act was satisfied as to notice and hearing. However, the Respondent had all facts when it charged the Claimant with failure to adhere to set procedures, attracting only a written warning for a first offence. Escalating the offence to gross negligence after the hearing defeated the Claimant's reasonable or legitimate expectation in the prescribed sanctions; the Respondent shifted goal posts to his detriment.
Alleged condemnation unheard on new allegations
Rejected; the character and nature of the allegations remained the same throughout - the issuance of the comprehensive cover for KDC 2X6X - and the anomalies in the show cause letter were the same as those covered at the hearing.
The court found it inaccurate for the Claimant to allege new allegations were introduced. The show cause letter, the disciplinary hearing and the dismissal letter all concerned the same conduct regarding the motor vehicle cover, so the Claimant had the opportunity to respond to the substance of the allegations.
Legal principles established
#- An employer who, having all the facts at its disposal, charges an employee with one offence and then escalates it to a more serious offence attracting a heavier sanction after the hearing violates the employee's legitimate expectation that its own disciplinary code will be followed.
- Where allegations addressed at a disciplinary hearing correspond with those in the show cause letter and the reasons in the dismissal letter, an employee cannot claim new allegations were introduced.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant awarding compensatory damages of Kshs 514,048.38, equivalent to three (3) months of his last salary.
- 2.Interest on the award at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full.
- 3.The Claimant to have the costs of the suit.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction; Employment Act (ss. 41, 44(4), 45(2)(c)) invoked
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenani v Britam Life Assurance Company (Kenya) Limited (Cause E839 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1743 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E839 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1743/eng@2025-06-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.