Ratemo v Seventh Day Adventist Church Central Rift Valley Conference (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E012 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1771 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded an auditor about Kshs. 868,000 after her church employer fired her over accusations it never proved or explained properly.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant's termination was substantively justified and procedurally fair
The termination was unfair and unprocedural. The accusation of a romantic relationship lacked particulars - the alleged co-worker was never named - so no valid reason was established, and the Claimant was not taken through a disciplinary hearing as required by section 41(1) of the Employment Act.
Section 47(5) of the Employment Act places the burden of justifying the grounds of termination on the employer. The Respondent, having entered no appearance and adduced no evidence at formal proof, did not controvert the Claimant's testimony. The show cause letter alleged an affair with an unnamed man, which could not establish a valid reason under section 43(1). The process - a commission of investigation followed by pressure to resign - did not satisfy section 41(1) procedural requirements.
Whether the employer's failure to particularise the alleged misconduct (the identity of the man involved) undermines substantive justification
Yes. An accusation without details fails to establish substantial justification, just as in the Biblical account of the woman accused of adultery where the man was not presented.
The court observed that the show cause letter accused the Claimant of a romantic relationship with a man who was not her lawfully married husband, yet the man was not named and no details were given. The court likened this to the woman taken to Jesus accused of adultery while the man was not presented. Without such details, the employer could not provide the valid reason required by sections 43(1) and 45(1) of the Employment Act.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination of employment to pass the fairness test there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness
- An employer who fails to prove the reasons for termination, including sufficient particulars of alleged misconduct, renders the termination unfair under sections 43(1) and 45(1) of the Employment Act
- In an undefended claim, an employer who files no response and tenders no evidence fails to discharge the twin tests of substantive justification and procedural fairness
Court orders
#- 1.One month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 96,541/= awarded to the Claimant
- 2.Compensation for unfair termination equivalent to 8 months' salary of Kshs. 771,662/64 awarded to the Claimant
- 3.Interest at court rates at 14% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment
- 4.Costs of the suit awarded to the Claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over unfair termination and wrongful dismissal claims (Employment Act, 2007)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ratemo v Seventh Day Adventist Church Central Rift Valley Conference (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E012 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1771 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Statement of Claim dated 6th February 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1771/eng@2025-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.