Iburi v Uhuru Flowers Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1873 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a flower farm worker six months' salary because her employer couldn't prove she received the disciplinary letter or was heard before dismissal.
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 appellant's contract of employment was unfair and unlawful
- 2.Whether the reliefs sought in the statement of claim are merited
- 3.Who should bear the cost of the appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether there was a valid reason for termination
A valid reason existed - harvesting flowers in breach of Standard Operating Procedures, which the appellant admitted - but the non-performance reason in the termination letter was not valid as it was never raised in the show cause letter or disciplinary hearing
The court examined the termination letter which cited non-performance and prior warnings. Non-performance was never mentioned in the show cause letter or disciplinary minutes, so it could not ground the dismissal. However, the charge of harvesting flowers without adhering to SOPs was raised in the show cause letter and disciplinary hearing, and the appellant admitted that offence at trial, satisfying the valid reason requirement under section 45(2)(a) and (b).
Whether fair procedure under section 41 of the Employment Act was followed
No - service of the show cause letter and summons to the disciplinary hearing was not proved; the appellant was never accorded an opportunity to defend herself
The appellant denied service of the show cause letter dated 19th October 2020 and denied being called to the hearing. The respondent led no evidence of service; the alleged server and the person sent to call the appellant were not called as witnesses. The termination letter itself made no allegation of service. The court therefore found the appellant was never heard, rendering the termination unfair and unlawful within section 45.
Appropriate remedies
Declaration of unfair termination plus compensatory damages of six months' gross salary (Kshs.92,802) under section 49(1); reinstatement unavailable as the three-year window under section 12(3) had closed
Having found the termination unfair, the court declared it so under section 45. Reinstatement could not issue because three years had lapsed since termination. Considering the appellant's over ten years of service but her contributory misconduct, the court exercised discretion under section 49(1) to award six months' gross salary based on the payslips showing Kshs.15,467 gross pay.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must prove service of a show cause letter and that the employee was afforded an opportunity to be heard before termination; failure to prove service renders the termination procedurally unfair under sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial court set aside and substituted
- 2.Compensation of Kshs.92,802.00 (six months' gross salary) awarded to the appellant
- 3.The award is subject to statutory deductions
- 4.Costs of the appeal and the court below awarded to the appellant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Trial court (magistrates' court, ELRC)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court against the judgment of the trial magistrate in an employment dispute
Relief refused
#Reinstatement
The three-year window permitted by section 12(3) of the Employment Act has lapsed
Future salary and allowances until retirement
Lack of particulars and supporting evidence
Costs
Costs of the appeal and the court below awarded to the appellant
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.
Consequently, I allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court and substitute it with the following orders in favour of the appellant:
Compensation ………………………………..Kshs.92,802.00
The award is subject to statutory deductions.
Costs of the appeal and court below.
Consequently, I find that the appellant was never accorded any opportunity to defend herself before termination of her employment on account of misconduct. Consequently, the termination was unfair and unlawful within the meaning of section 45 of the Employment Act.
The respondent did not adduce any evidence to prove service of the show cause letter or to prove that the appellant was made aware of the disciplinary hearing.
Issues in the judgment
#Appellant's monthly gross salary stated as Kshs.44,567 in one paragraph and Kshs.15,467 elsewhere; the court adopted Kshs.15,467 based on payslips
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Iburi v Uhuru Flowers Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1873 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Appeal (ELRC, Nyeri) - number not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1873/eng@2025-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.