Chege v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (Cause E043 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2190 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya Power summarily dismissed a 28-year employee on vague, inconsistent allegations, and the Mombasa court held the dismissal unfair but awarded only modest compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity and fairness of the reasons for summary dismissal
The summary dismissal was based on reasons that lacked validity and were not fair or reasonable, amounting to unfair termination contrary to section 45 of the Employment Act
The notice to show cause bore generic information with no particulars. The allegation that the claimant received money from private electricians as an agent of Crispus Mwaniki was at wide variance with the audit allegations, since issuing work orders was part of her duties. The work orders for conversions were not particularised and the required approval process was not established. The audit team lacked a specific mandate and conducted flawed investigations.
Legal framework for proving justification of dismissal
The employer's genuine belief must be based on reasonable and sufficient grounds; sections 43 and 45(2) read together require proof of a valid and fair reason, underpinned by Article 41 of the Constitution
Relying on Lydia Chepkosgei Mutai, Kenya Revenue Authority v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi, and Bamburi Cement Ltd v William Kilonzi, the court held that the partly subjective genuine-belief test must rest on reasonable and sufficient grounds, and dishonesty justifying dismissal must be assessed in context as breaching an essential condition of the employment contract, mirroring Article 41 constitutional fairness in labour relations.
Reinstatement
Reinstatement refused as barred by time under section 12(3) of the ELRC Act and inappropriate in the circumstances
The claimant sought reinstatement with back wages for 28 months, but the remedy is subject to the three-year limitation in section 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. Further, the court found that a return to the shop floor would be hostile and inappropriate given the passage of time, and the claimant was already engaged in her own business.
Remedies
Notice pay of Ksh. 135,000 and compensation equivalent to three months' pay (Ksh. 405,000) awarded; exemplary and punitive damages refused
The claimant had a clean record, having worked diligently from June 1992 to February 2020, justifying the maximum-considered award of three months' gross pay as compensation under section 49. Notice pay was awarded at one month's salary. General, aggravated and exemplary damages were refused for lack of particulars and because the compensation award sufficed.
Legal principles established
#- An employer's genuine belief under section 43(2) must rest on reasonable and sufficient grounds, and sections 43 and 45(2) must be read together so the employer must prove a valid and fair reason for termination.
- The standard of proof in employment termination is on a balance of probability, and the employer need only prove reasons it genuinely believed to exist.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that employment was terminated unfairly
- 2.Compensation of Ksh. 405,000 (3 months' pay at Ksh. 135,000)
- 3.Notice pay of Ksh. 135,000
- 4.Each party to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, section 12 (employment and labour relations dispute); Article 41 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chege v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (Cause E043 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2190 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E043 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2190/eng@2025-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.