Ogare v G4S Kenya Limited (Appeal E350 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2039 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court ruled that emailing disciplinary letters to an absent employee's known personal email counts as fair notice, and dismissed her appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether service of disciplinary documents (show cause letter, notice of hearing, dismissal letter) by personal email satisfied the procedural fairness requirements of section 41 of the Employment Act where the employee absconded
Yes. Where the employee had previously communicated with the employer by the same email address and had absconded, sending the disciplinary documents to her known personal email was a reasonable effort to contact her; procedural fairness was met.
The court re-evaluated the evidence under Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. It was common ground that the email address belonged to the appellant, that emails were received in her mailbox, and that she had herself initiated email correspondence with the employer, including downloading payslips and appealing a transfer by email. Applying Simon Mbithi Mbane v Inter Security Services, the employer need only make reasonable efforts to contact an absconding employee; tracking an employee down physically would impose an undue burden on a large employer. Musyoka v Diamond Trust Bank was distinguished because that case concerned postal notices, not email.
Whether the ground that the alleged communication policy was not exhibited availed the appellant
No; the issue was academic since the appellant admitted the pre-desertion notice was sent to her own personal email.
The court held that the absence of an exhibited communication policy could not vitiate the process where the employee conceded receipt of the notices on her own personal email and the established threshold under section 41 for absconding cases is only that the employer demonstrate reasonable efforts at contact.
Whether the employer's internal appeal process cured any procedural defect
Yes; the appellant was heard on appeal and even offered a position at Kisumu, which she refused, rendering the due process complaint academic and moot.
The record of the employer's appeal proceedings showed the appellant was given a hearing and an offer of alternative deployment, which she declined. The court held the complaint about service by email was moot as the appellant had been extended an olive branch.
Legal principles established
#- An allegation that an employee has absconded duties calls upon the employer to reasonably demonstrate that efforts were made to contact such an employee without success, and use of the employee's known personal email address constitutes a reasonable effort.
- Email communication is an acceptable mode of communication in disciplinary processes where there is evidence that the parties had previously communicated by email and the employee absconded duty.
- An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by an inferior court unless satisfied that its decision is clearly wrong.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent taking into account the conduct of the appellant
- 2.The court upheld the Judgment and Decree of the Hon. C. Ogweno delivered on 7th November, 2024 in MCELRC/E1589/2022
- On appeal from
- Milimani Commercial Courts (ELRC), Nairobi
- MCELRC/E1589/2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's judgment in an employment claim
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogare v G4S Kenya Limited (Appeal E350 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2039 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Appeal dated 3rd December 2024, arising from MCELRC/E1589/2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2039/eng@2025-07-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.