Obasie v National Industrial Training Authority (NITA) (Cause E131 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1746 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a manager's unfair termination suit, holding that failing to detect fraud through negligence is a valid reason for dismissal even without criminal guilt.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Valid and fair reason for termination
The Respondent proved on a balance of probabilities that the Claimant, as acting Manager Finance, was negligent in failing to ensure timely bank reconciliations and supervision, giving a valid and fair reason under Sections 43 and 45(2)(a) & (b).
The Claimant was the officer in charge of the Finance department, supervising Jamal Ochieng, who was linked to the fraud. He admitted reconciliations were three months behind, and the fraud went undetected for three months partly because of the failure to reconcile. The BFIU recommended action against him for negligence. His defence of staff shortage was unconvincing as he never raised it previously; nor was he the whistleblower, having been alerted by the Revenue Accountant.
Procedural fairness
The procedure met the minimum requirements of Section 41 of the Employment Act: notice to show cause, response, and an oral disciplinary hearing.
The Claimant was sent on compulsory leave, issued a Notice to Show Cause dated 31st August 2017, responded on 4th September 2017, and was invited to an oral hearing before a disciplinary panel. His claim that he was given only three days contrary to a 21-day HR Manual provision failed because the Manual was not exhibited in Court. His appeal and further appeal to the Public Service Commission were dismissed.
Entitlement to reliefs
Having found the termination fair and lawful, the reliefs of reinstatement and damages were unavailable.
The Court found the termination neither unfair nor unlawful, so the Claimant failed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities and no relief could issue.
Legal principles established
#- Under Section 43(2) of the Employment Act, the reasons for termination are those the employer genuinely believed to exist at the time, proved on a balance of probabilities.
- Criminal exoneration does not absolve an employee of disciplinary liability for negligence in performance of duties.
- An employer must prove both valid reason and procedural fairness under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's suit is dismissed in its entirety with no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment claim under the Employment Act before the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Obasie v National Industrial Training Authority (NITA) (Cause E131 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1746 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Statement of Claim dated 17th February 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1746/eng@2025-06-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.