Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 2203 (KLR)

Nyakira v Kenya Power Lighting Co Limited (Cause E049 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2203 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 July 2025
MMM. MBARŨ
4,282 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya Power lost a dismissal case because its audit evidence was too vague and the employee was never shown the evidence used against him.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, an artisan Mate Assistant at the respondent's Mbaraki depot in Mombasa, was summarily dismissed on 4 February 2020 following an internal audit into rebilling and unprocedural meter changes. He was charged with abdicating duties to private electricians, understating closing readings, and receiving Ksh.60,488 from electricians linked to one Crispus Mwaniki. He claimed the dismissal was wrongful, sought reinstatement, salary arrears to retirement, terminal benefits, general and aggravated damages and costs. The respondent justified the dismissal as gross misconduct, citing the audit, a show cause notice, a disciplinary hearing attended with a union representative, and the claimant's poor disciplinary record. The court held that the employer failed to prove valid and fair reasons under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act: the audit did not particularise the meters allegedly given to Mpate, work orders were raised by supervisor Benedict Mulu rather than the claimant, and the M-Pesa payments had no demonstrated causal link to the claimant's conduct. The disciplinary process was also unfair because the claimant was disciplined without the audit report or statements of the alleged electricians, and the court order for M-Pesa data was never produced. Reinstatement was refused given the lapse of over three years and the claimant's prior warnings. The court awarded three months' salary as compensation (Ksh.283,462.47), one month's notice pay (Ksh.94,487), terminal dues including pension upon clearance, less Ksh.84,496.46 owed to the respondent. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of reasons for summary dismissal

Holding

The audit failed to particularise the meters or link the payments to the claimant, so no valid and fair reason was proved

Reasoning

The court found the audit generalisations lacked particulars: the 19 meters allegedly given to Mpate were never identified, work orders were raised by supervisor Benedict Mulu, and only one payment (Ksh.6,500 from Mpate) connected to the claimant. Under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act the employer failed to prove valid, fair reasons on a balance of probability.

p. 9
02

Fairness of procedure

Holding

The claimant and others were disciplined without the audit report or statements of the alleged private electricians, rendering the process unfair

Reasoning

The employee must be notified of the allegations with supporting material so as to make representations. The employer obtained M-Pesa statements by court order but withheld them from the claimant, ambushing him at the enquiry. The court order itself was never produced in evidence.

p. 6
03

Reinstatement

Holding

Reinstatement refused because of lapse of time and the claimant's poor work record

Reasoning

Under section 12(3)(viii) of the ELRC Act and section 49(4) of the Employment Act, the court must consider time elapsed. Termination occurred over three years before judgment. The claimant's prior warnings for insubordination and abusive language also counted against reinstatement under section 45(5).

p. 9
04

Compensation

Holding

Three months' salary awarded as compensation for the unfair summary dismissal

Reasoning

The claimant served five years from January 2015 to February 2020 and had hoped to retire at 60. Compensation of three months at Ksh.94,487.49 was deemed appropriate, plus one month's notice pay.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must prove genuine, valid and fair reasons for termination, established on reasonable and sufficient grounds, on a balance of probability
  • Ambushing an employee with evidence not disclosed during the disciplinary enquiry defeats fairness under Article 50 of the Constitution

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that employment was terminated unfairly
  2. 2.Compensation of Ksh. 283,462.47
  3. 3.Notice pay of Ksh. 94,487
  4. 4.Claimant to clear for processing of terminal dues including pension, if any
  5. 5.Dues payable less Ksh. 84,496.46 owed to the respondent
  6. 6.Each party to bear its costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, section 12(3)(viii); Employment Act sections 41, 43, 45 and 49

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyakira v Kenya Power Lighting Co Limited (Cause E049 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2203 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2203/eng@2025-07-24

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