Masire v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (Cause 62 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2189 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld Kenya Power's summary dismissal of an artisan for failing to return company meters, while rejecting the bribery charge for lack of evidence.
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 summary dismissal of the claimant on 4 February 2020 was justified under section 44 of the Employment Act
- 2.Whether the disciplinary and dismissal procedure complied with section 41 of the Employment Act
- 3.Whether the allegations of receiving Ksh.77,965 from electricians for irregular complimentary rebilling were substantiated
- 4.Whether the claimant's failure to return replaced meters to the stores amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal
- 5.Whether the remedies of reinstatement, salary to retirement, or terminal dues were warranted
Key legal issues
#Justification of summary dismissal under section 44 of the Employment Act
The dismissal was justified on the second charge: the claimant failed to return meters collected from stores and could not account for one, amounting to negligence and gross misconduct
The court found the first charge on receiving payments for irregular rebilling unsubstantiated, as the link between the payments and the claimant and the underlying accounts were unclear. However, the claimant admitted failing to return meters No. 060946719 and 060929223 to the stores due to being overwhelmed by work. Given his poor disciplinary record and the seriousness of failing to account for work tools, summary dismissal under section 44 was justified.
Substantiation of the allegation of receiving Ksh.77,965 for irregular complimentary rebilling
That charge was unsubstantiated; the connection between payments and the claimant, and the alleged agent Crispus Mwaniki Maina, was not established
The court noted the audit did not establish who Crispus Mwaniki Maina was, whether he was ever held accountable, and the accounts allegedly irregularly rebilled were never reviewed. The evidence linking the claimant to the payments was therefore lost and the charge could not stand.
Procedural fairness under section 41 of the Employment Act
Due process was followed: show cause notice, disciplinary hearing with union representation, and right of appeal were accorded
The respondent's evidence showed the claimant was issued a show cause notice dated 18 December 2019, responded on 23 December 2019, attended a disciplinary hearing with his union representative, was found culpable, and was allowed a right of appeal which he pursued without raising new issues.
Legal principles established
#- Summary dismissal is the most severe sanction and should only issue in the clearest cases of gross misconduct
- An employee who fails to account for work tools collected from stores commits a serious breach justifying summary dismissal
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
- 3.Declaration that the claimant owes the respondent Ksh. 276,400.40
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment Act; Employment and Labour Relations Court) - no specific provision stated in the judgment
Relief refused
#Reinstatement and back salary of Ksh. 5,627,356 for 28 months
Summary dismissal was justified; remedy of reinstatement not justified
Salary for 54 months to retirement (Ksh. 10,852,758)
Claim dismissed as without merit
Terminal dues until retirement (Ksh. 16,480,114)
Not justified given justified summary dismissal
General, aggravated and exemplary damages
Claim dismissed; no unlawful or unfair termination found
Costs
Each party to bear its costs
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.
The sanction of summary dismissal is the most severe and should only be issued in the clearest cases where the employee is found to be in breach of the employment contract and engaged in gross misconduct.
The case that the payments arose from irregular complimentary rebilling of accounts remains unsubstantiated, as these accounts have not been reviewed. This piece of evidence is lost.
The failure to provide an account of work tools collected from stores, under the pretense of being overwhelmed at work, is not a reasonable excuse. The sanction of summary dismissal is justified.
Accordingly, the claim is without merit and is hereby dismissed. Each party to bear its costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Party names are never formally stated in a caption; the claimant's name appears only in witness testimony and the respondent is never named in the judgment
Year of engagement stated as 1888, an apparent typographical error
Inconsistent figures for the alleged payments - Ksh.77,965 versus Ksh.77,765 and Ksh.71,000 appear in different parts of the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Masire v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (Cause 62 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2189 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2189/eng@2025-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.