Ng’eno v East African Breweries PLC (Cause E874 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2188 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court awarded a former EABL manager nearly Kshs 11 million because his employer hid the investigation report during disciplinary hearings, making the dismissal unfair.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of reason for dismissal
The Respondent failed to establish valid reasons for dismissing the Claimant because the disciplinary process was fatally compromised by denial of the investigation report and witness statements.
Section 43 of the Employment Act requires the employer to prove the reasons for termination. The Court applied the reasonable responses test, refusing to substitute its own decision for the employer's, but found that the Claimant was denied the investigation report and witness statements requested at the inception of the process. This denial violated the procedural fairness blueprint in Section 41, so the Respondent failed to establish valid reasons. Post-dismissal procurement of a prejudicial letter from Kenyatta University without explanation firmed up the finding of unfairness.
Procedural fairness under Section 41
An employee is entitled to documents in the employer's possession that would assist in preparing a defence, including audit/investigation reports and witness statements.
The Court adopted the summary of Section 41 in Chitavi and relied on Rebecca Ann Maina and Ol Pajeta Ranching: charges must be clear, the employee afforded sufficient time and entitled to documents, including the audit/investigation report, to prepare the defence. The Claimant asked for the investigation report right at the inception of the disciplinary process but was denied; the confidentiality justification was rejected as feeble.
Discrimination
The discrimination claim failed as no listed ground under Article 27(4) or Section 5(3) of the Employment Act was established.
The Claimant alleged he was singled out while colleagues went scot-free, but being singled out alone is insufficient; a claimant must establish at least one of the enumerated grounds (race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion or conscience). None was proved, so the claim failed.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must afford an employee the documents relied upon, including the investigation report and witness statements, to prepare a defence; denial under a pretext of confidentiality compromises the entire disciplinary process and the dismissal becomes unfair.
- A discrimination claim must be anchored on at least one ground listed in Article 27(4) of the Constitution or Section 5(3) of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant: 12 months' salary in compensation of Kshs. 10,058,300
- 2.1 month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 838,199 (total Kshs. 10,896,787)
- 3.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 4.Claimant awarded the costs of the case
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (unfair dismissal claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ng’eno v East African Breweries PLC (Cause E874 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2188 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 30th October 2023, amended 28th February 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2188/eng@2025-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.