Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMemorandum of Claim dated 3rd October, 2022· [2025] KEELRC 2103 (KLR)

Cheptoo v Chairman, Music Copyright Society Ltd (Cause E717 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2103 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 June 2025
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
1,929 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled a Finance Manager's dismissal by MCSK was lawful because she caused losses through negligence and was fairly disciplined before dismissal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, formerly employed as an Accounts Clerk from 1st July 2010 and promoted to Finance Manager on 3rd May 2021, sued the Respondents alleging wrongful, unfair and summary termination by letter dated 5th November 2021. She pleaded that disciplinary proceedings were a sham - she was dictated issues rather than heard, denied the chance to be accompanied by a co-employee or cross-examine witnesses, and was dismissed without hearing. She sought a declaration of unfair termination, Kshs. 8,048,010.61 covering unpaid salary, arrears, leave allowance, 12 months' compensation, notice pay, a transfer allowance and various unremitted deductions (PAYE, retirement benefits, bank, Sacco and NSSF), plus general damages and costs. The Respondent denied the claim, raised misjoinder, and asserted the termination followed fair disciplinary proceedings under the HR Manual after a show cause letter and a disciplinary committee hearing, founded on gross misconduct, dereliction of duty and losses arising from erroneous and unauthorized royalty payments, including a claimed loss of Kshs. 352,874.67. The court framed three issues: lawfulness of termination, entitlement to relief, and costs. Applying sections 41, 43, 44, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act and Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution, and accepting the Respondent's reliance on the genuine-belief standard, the court found the claimant's laxity and malfeasance caused massive loss and that due process was observed. The claim was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was wrongful, unfair and unlawful

Holding

The termination was lawful. The claimant's laxity and malfeasance caused massive loss to the Respondent, and she was taken through appropriate disciplinary proceedings with commitment to due process.

Reasoning

The court accepted the Respondent's evidence that the claimant, as Finance Manager, failed to verify member lists before payments, leading to erroneous and unauthorized royalty payments exceeding Kshs. 1,200,000. Relying on section 43(2) of the Employment Act and the standard of genuine belief in the facts as at termination, the court held the employer proved the reasons for dismissal on a balance of probabilities after a fair disciplinary process.

p. 4
02

Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought

Holding

She is not entitled; a finding of lawful termination disentitles her to the relief claimed.

Reasoning

All heads of claim - the declaration of unfair termination, the quantum of Kshs. 8,048,010.61 covering unpaid salary, arrears, leave allowance, 12 months' compensation, notice pay and unremitted deductions, and general damages - flowed from the unfair termination claim, which failed.

p. 5
03

Who bears the costs of the cause

Holding

Each party to bear their own costs.

Reasoning

Although the claim was dismissed, the court did not award costs to the Respondent but directed each party to bear their own costs of the claim.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The employer bears the burden of proving the reason or reasons for termination, and where it fails, the termination is deemed unfair under section 45 of the Employment Act.
  • The reason for termination is measured subjectively by what the employer genuinely believed to exist at the time of termination.
  • Where disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly and the employer proves gross misconduct on a balance of probabilities, the termination is lawful and the employee is disentitled to relief.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the claim
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the claim

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Sections 41, 43, 44, 45, 47
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 41 and 47

Cases cited (2)

  • Galgalo Jarso Jillo v Agricultural Finance Corporation
    [2021] eKLR
  • Kenya Revenue Authority v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi & 2 others
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (sections 41, 43, 44, 45 and 47) and Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cheptoo v Chairman, Music Copyright Society Ltd (Cause E717 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2103 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 3rd October, 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2103/eng@2025-06-25

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