Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 1823 (KLR)

Omondi v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (Cause E620 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1823 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 June 2025
JKJ.W. Keli
4,684 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenya Power employee's dismissal stood even after his criminal acquittal, because workplace discipline follows a different, lower standard of proof than criminal court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent (Kenya Power) in 2009 and promoted to Technician in 2011, challenged his summary dismissal dated 12th June 2020. He had been arrested on 10th March 2020 and arraigned at Makadara Law Courts on charges of fraudulent consumption of electrical energy contrary to section 168(f) of the Energy Act, 2019. He received a notice to show cause on 13th March 2020, attended a disciplinary hearing on 5th May 2020, and was dismissed for possessing a three-phase cable despite applying for single phase, tampering with company installation by moving the meter, being on direct supply, and constructing his own power connection. His appeal hearing was fixed for September 2020 but he stayed away. He was acquitted under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 20th July 2023. He sought declarations of unfair dismissal and violation of Article 41(1), twelve months' compensation, payment in lieu of notice, further compensation, general damages, interest and costs. The court framed two issues: whether the termination was fair, and whether the reliefs were payable. It held the employer had valid reasons on the evidence before the disciplinary panel, that the criminal acquittal did not bind internal proceedings, and that procedural fairness under section 41 was met. The claim was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the summary dismissal was substantively fair

Holding

The employer had valid reasons for dismissal: the claimant removed a meter from the meter box without authority, could not explain a three-phase connection where he had applied for single phase, and was on direct supply to the detriment of the employer.

Reasoning

The claimant admitted applying for the meter, that the meter was installed, and that he removed it from the meter box without authority. He was silent when asked how he ended up with a three-phase connection after applying for single phase, though he confirmed that as a designer he would report such cases to security. The conduct disclosed an offence against the employer's property under section 44(4)(g) of the Employment Act. The subsequent acquittal under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code arose from gaps in police investigations, not from the employer's evidence, and did not affect the dismissal decision.

p. 9
02

Whether the summary dismissal was procedurally fair

Holding

Procedure under section 41 was complied with: the claimant was asked to explain, responded, was invited to a disciplinary hearing with the option of a witness, was heard, and had a right of appeal.

Reasoning

The respondent called upon the claimant to explain the allegations, received a response, invited him to a disciplinary hearing cautioning him on the right to bring a witness, held an elaborate hearing at which his representations were taken, issued a dismissal decision on the same issues, and notified him of the right to appeal. He was invited to the appeal hearing but chose to stay away citing a court order. Fair hearing was deemed met where the person is given an opportunity to be heard, which was granted.

p. 10
03

Whether the claimant's acquittal in the criminal case (Makadara Criminal Case No. 1148 of 2020) vitiated the dismissal

Holding

No. The criminal case outcome was not binding on the employer's internal disciplinary process, and the acquittal was not a decision on merit.

Reasoning

The dismissal predated the criminal ruling delivered on 20th July 2023. The criminal standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt whereas employment disputes are decided on a balance of probabilities as assessed against a reasonable employer. The criminal case was terminated because the investigator failed to produce evidence, including the meter, that the claimant confirmed existed at the disciplinary hearing. Public prosecution belongs to the state and the respondent could not be blamed for gaps in the investigations.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • Criminal proceedings and their outcome are not binding on an employer's internal disciplinary proceedings, as the standards of proof differ.
  • A termination must pass both substantive fairness (valid reasons) and procedural fairness (section 41 Employment Act) to survive a challenge.
  • The employer bears the burden of proving the reason or reasons for termination, failing which the termination is deemed unfair.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed with costs to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 43
  • Employment ActSection 44(4)(g)
  • Employment ActSection 45(2)
  • Energy Act, 2019Section 168(f)
  • Criminal Procedure CodeSection 201
  • Criminal Procedure CodeSection 210
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 47 and 50

Cases cited (4)

  • Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission
    [2013] eKLR
  • Judicial Service Commission v Gladys Boss Shollei
    [2014] eKLR
  • Janet Nyandiko v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    [2017] eKLR
  • National Bank of Kenya v Anthony Njue John
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over unfair summary dismissal under the Employment Act and Article 41 of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (3)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Omondi v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (Cause E620 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1823 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1823/eng@2025-06-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.