Nyanguda v Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Limited (Cause 39 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2187 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled Kenya Power unfairly dismissed a clerk because it accused her with suspicion, not evidence, and awarded her compensation.
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 respondent had valid and fair reasons to summarily dismiss the claimant
- 2.Whether the disciplinary and dismissal process accorded with fair procedure under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
- 3.Whether the claims of discrimination and constitutional violation were proved
- 4.Whether reinstatement was available as a remedy
- 5.What alternative remedies (compensation, notice pay, damages, costs) were due
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent proved valid reasons for the summary dismissal
The respondent failed to substantiate the charges; the link between the claimant's M-Pesa receipts and any rebilling or meter change was not established, so the dismissal was substantively unfair
The court found the audit established only M-Pesa transactions between the claimant and private electricians, but never traced those payments to specific rebillings, meter changes or retrofits, nor to the alleged Ksh.41 million revenue loss. The claimant's explanation of fish selling and church fundraising was credible. The charge that she was part of a network was conjecture, not evidence.
Whether procedure under Sections 41 and 45 was fair
Although show cause, hearing and appeal were given, the missing particulars of the alleged rebillings prevented an effective response, rendering the process unfair
The claimant was issued a show cause notice, invited to a disciplinary hearing with representation, and appealed. However, the charges were an omnibus of 'rebilling and unprocedural meter change' without details of which rebillings or meter changes she affected, denying her a fair opportunity to respond. The absence of particulars invalidated the allegations.
Whether reinstatement should issue
Reinstatement refused as out of time and impractical
Section 12(3) of the ELRC Act bars reinstatement orders after three years from dismissal. Additionally, given the hostile work environment surrounding the dismissal, reinstatement would not foster peaceful industrial relations.
Legal principles established
#- An employer's belief in an employee's misconduct must be founded on cogent evidence on a balance of probabilities, not conjecture
- Procedural compliance alone is insufficient; the employer must also prove valid and fair reasons for termination under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the claimant's employment was terminated unfairly
- 2.Compensation of Ksh. 342,490.77 (three months' gross salary)
- 3.Notice pay of Ksh. 114,163.59
- 4.The claimant awarded 50% of the costs of the suit
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 Court Act, Section 12 (reinstatement and remedies under Sections 41, 43, 44, 45 and 49 of the Employment Act)
Relief refused
#Reinstatement with back salaries from 10 February 2020
Reinstatement was barred by time under Section 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and the hostile work environment made return inappropriate
General, exemplary and punitive damages
The compensation award for unfair termination was held to suffice
Terminal dues for salary to retirement (Ksh. 16,896,211.32)
Not granted; only statutory compensation and notice pay were awarded
Costs
The claimant is entitled to 50% of her costs; judgment awarded '50% of costs' to the claimant
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.
An employer cannot rely on a genuine belief that the employee has committed workplace misconduct or gross misconduct. This belief must be founded on cogent evidence which, on a balance of probabilities, points to the employee’s culpability. It cannot be founded on conjecture.
In the premises, the court finds the respondent did not substantiate the charges it levelled against the Claimant. As such, the respondent has failed to demonstrate that it had substantive grounds to terminate the Claimant’s employment through summary dismissal.
This resulted in unlawful and unfair termination of employment.
Given the finding of unfair termination through summary dismissal, the claimant had diligently worked without any poor record from December 2006 to 4 February 2020.
Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered for the claimant against the respondent in the following terms: a. a declaration that employment terminated unfairly, b. Compensation Ksh. 342,490.77. c. notice pay Ksh. 114,163.59, d. 50% of costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The amounts received from each electrician are inconsistently attributed across the judgment (e.g. K. Were Ksh.15,700 vs Ksh.2,300 in paragraph 29; compensation computed as Ksh. 343,490.77 in reasoning but ordered as Ksh. 342,490.77)
Final compensation figure in the orders (Ksh. 342,490.77) does not match the computed figure of Ksh. 343,490.77
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyanguda v Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Limited (Cause 39 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2187 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC at Mombasa (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2187/eng@2025-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.