Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2025] KEELRC 1886 (KLR)

Omundi v Judicial Service Commission & another (Cause E046 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1886 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 June 2025
AMAnna Ngibuini Mwaure
4,180 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled the Judiciary unfairly dismissed an employee its own disciplinary committee had cleared, awarding him over Kshs. 1.8 million.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a judiciary employee who rose from Clerical Officer to Accounts Assistant II earning Kshs. 101,572/= monthly, was interdicted in October 2019 on half salary following an internal audit at Molo Law Courts that implicated him in fraudulent revenue collection through parallel receipt books, with a reported loss of Kshs. 1,534,121/=. He was dismissed by letter dated 4th January 2021 after a disciplinary hearing before the Human Resource Management Committee. Significantly, that committee recommended that the Claimant be absolved from wrongdoing, be reinstated with full pay, and refund only Kshs. 30,000/=, noting that Mr. Tamar had confirmed signing the receipt books; the Respondents nonetheless dismissed him. The court framed three issues: lawfulness of termination, entitlement to reliefs, and costs. Relying on the twin-tests doctrine from Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission and the German School Society decision, the court held that the Respondent failed both substantive justification and procedural fairness under sections 41, 43(1) and 45(1) of the Employment Act: no expert confirmed the Claimant's signatures on the impugned receipts, and he was dismissed despite the committee's absolution. Judgment was entered for the Claimant. The court awarded notice pay of Kshs. 101,572/=, unpaid half salary of Kshs. 711,004/= (October 2019 to December 2020), and 10 months' salary as compensation (Kshs. 1,015,720/=), but declined reinstatement because three years had lapsed under section 12(3)(vii) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, and left gratuity for the Respondent to deal with as appropriate. Each party was to bear its own costs, with interest on the award at 14% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Substantive justification for the dismissal

Holding

The Respondent failed to give a valid reason for the dismissal; the disciplinary committee had absolved the Claimant of liability for the Kshs. 1,534,121/= loss, yet he was dismissed for that same loss. No expert confirmed the signatures on the impugned receipts.

Reasoning

The Human Resource Management Committee that heard the disciplinary matter recommended the Claimant be absolved from wrongdoing and reinstated, finding Mr. Tamar had signed the receipt books. No handwriting expert evidence tied the Claimant to the receipts. Dismissing him for the misappropriation the committee had exonerated him of breached sections 43(1) and 45(1) of the Employment Act.

p. 8
02

Procedural fairness

Holding

The Respondent failed the procedural fairness limb under section 41 of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

The court found that the Respondent neither gave valid reasons nor followed the mandatory procedure in section 41 of the Employment Act. The questioned parallel receipts were not shared with the Claimant, and the dismissal followed a committee recommendation of absolution and reinstatement.

p. 9
03

Remedies for unfair termination

Holding

Notice pay, half salary and 10 months' compensation awarded; reinstatement refused as time-barred; gratuity left to the Respondent.

Reasoning

The court entered judgment for the Claimant, awarding notice pay of Kshs. 101,572/=, unpaid half salary of Kshs. 711,004/=, and 10 months' salary as compensation (Kshs. 1,015,720/=), applying its discretion under the Employment Act, but declined reinstatement as three years had elapsed since termination.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • Termination must satisfy both substantive justification and procedural fairness
  • Employer bears the burden of proving reasons for termination; failure renders termination unfair

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Payment of unpaid salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 101,572/=
  2. 2.Court not clear on gratuity; if not paid, Respondent can deal as appropriate
  3. 3.Payment of unpaid half salary from October 2019 to December 2020 of Kshs. 711,004/=
  4. 4.No reinstatement as three years have lapsed since termination under Section 12(3)(vii) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act
  5. 5.Compensation of 10 months' salary, Kshs. 101,572 x 10 = Kshs. 1,015,720/=
  6. 6.Each party to meet their respective costs
  7. 7.Interest on the total award at 14% per annum from date of judgment till full payment
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Act (Section 12 referred to in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Omundi v Judicial Service Commission & another (Cause E046 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1886 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1886/eng@2025-06-27

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