Ojwang v Kenya Power & Lighting Co (KPLC) (Cause E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2068 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the employer had substantive justification for the termination
Yes - the respondent had a valid and fair reason grounded in the claimant's collusion in constructing an illegal power line
The court found the claimant was the only employee who dealt with the customer in 2018, gave him a mobile number belonging to Jacob Okoth, money was sent through that number, and an illegal line was recovered from the customer's property. The claimant gave contradictory testimony and refused to answer whether he was lying. The court held it more probable than improbable that the claimant orchestrated the events, satisfying the reasonable responses test and Section 43/45 of the Employment Act.
Whether the termination was procedurally fair
No - the respondent failed to avail the investigation report to the claimant before the disciplinary hearing, rendering the termination procedurally flawed and unfair
The court accepted that notice to show cause, response, hearing and appeal were complied with, but held that an employee is entitled to all materials the employer relies on, including witness statements and the investigation report. Failure to avail the report impaired the claimant's right to a fair trial, making the termination procedurally unfair under Section 45(4) and (5) of the Employment Act.
Entitlement to reliefs
Only compensation under Section 49(1)(c) equivalent of one month's gross salary (Kshs.243,548.31); notice pay and anticipatory earnings refused
Notice pay failed because the dismissal was summary for gross misconduct under Section 44. Anticipatory earnings lacked legal anchorage per D K Njagi Marete and Elizabeth Wakanyi Kibe. In quantifying compensation, the court considered 30 years of service, absence of prior disciplinary record, the appeal, but the claimant's blameworthiness, awarding one month's gross salary.
Legal principles established
#- An employee facing disciplinary proceedings is entitled to all materials the employer relies upon, including the investigation report and witness statements, to prepare a defence; failure to avail them renders the termination procedurally unfair
- An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not bar an employer from disciplining or terminating an employee under the contract of employment; the two are distinct processes with different standards of proof
- Damages for unfair termination do not extend to anticipated earnings up to retirement; no employment is permanent
Court orders
#- 1.Equivalent of one (1) month's gross salary Kshs.243,548.31 awarded to the claimant
- 2.50% costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over unfair termination of employment (Employment Act; no specific constitutional provision invoked for jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ojwang v Kenya Power & Lighting Co (KPLC) (Cause E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2068 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E003 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2068/eng@2025-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.