Omundi v Judicial Service Commission & another (Cause E046 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1886 (KLR)
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
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Claimant's termination was unlawfully done
- 2.If (i) is in the affirmative, whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Substantive justification for the dismissal
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.
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.
Procedural fairness
The Respondent failed the procedural fairness limb under section 41 of the Employment Act.
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.
Remedies for unfair termination
Notice pay, half salary and 10 months' compensation awarded; reinstatement refused as time-barred; gratuity left to the Respondent.
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.
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.Payment of unpaid salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 101,572/=
- 2.Court not clear on gratuity; if not paid, Respondent can deal as appropriate
- 3.Payment of unpaid half salary from October 2019 to December 2020 of Kshs. 711,004/=
- 4.No reinstatement as three years have lapsed since termination under Section 12(3)(vii) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act
- 5.Compensation of 10 months' salary, Kshs. 101,572 x 10 = Kshs. 1,015,720/=
- 6.Each party to meet their respective costs
- 7.Interest on the total award at 14% per annum from date of judgment till full payment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Act (Section 12 referred to in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Reinstatement with full benefits
Three years had lapsed since termination, exceeding the statutory limit
Service gratuity of Kshs. 558,646/=
The court was not clear on gratuity
Costs
Each party will meet their respective costs.
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.
The Respondent failed the twin tests of giving substantive justification and procedural fairness in terminating the Claimant.
the Respondent must be held to have failed to give a valid reason for terminating the Claimant for misappropriating of Kshs.1,534,121/= while the Human Resource Committee that took him through the disciplinary proceedings found him not liable.
The court therefore enters judgment in his favour.
The Claimant is given 10 months salary equivalent instead as compensation Kshs.101,572 X 10 = Kshs.1,015,720/=.
Each party will meet their respective costs.
Respondent is to pay interest on the above total award at 14% per annum from date of judgment till full payment.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently states the disciplinary hearing date, recording that the committee met the Claimant on 25th November 2023 while the hearing was elsewhere recorded as 17th November 2020.
The judgment refers to Article 72 of the Kenya Constitution, whereas the provision on the Judicial Service Commission appears in Article 172; the judgment also cites inconsistent amounts (Kshs.1,534,121 vs Kshs.1,524,121) for the loss.
Inconsistent figure for the misappropriated amount: the audit finding is given as Kshs.1,534,121 but the dismissal is later said to involve Kshs.1,524,121.
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.