H. Young & Company (EA) Ltd v Njega (Appeal E036 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2216 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld an unfair dismissal finding but cut the compensation from 12 to 4 months' salary, saying maximum awards need justification.
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 trial court erred in finding that the appellant had no justifiable reason for terminating the respondent's services
- 2.Whether the procedure followed in the termination was fair
- 3.Whether the award of 12 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination was justified
Key legal issues
#Validity of the reason for termination
The appellant had no justifiable reason to terminate the respondent's services
Despite GPS tracking and fuel seals, the appellant produced no evidence that the respondent stopped at an unauthorised location where fuel could be siphoned, no evidence that seals were tampered with, and no evidence of the fuel level in the vehicle before handover. The fuel report alone could not establish theft. The trial court's conclusion was reasonably based on the evidence.
Fairness of the termination procedure
The procedure was unfair as the respondent was not given reasonable time to prepare his defence
The notice to show cause was issued on 26th August 2020 and the disciplinary hearing took place the following day, 27th August 2020. The respondent was therefore not accorded reasonable time and opportunity to prepare his defence, rendering the procedure unfair notwithstanding the issuance of the notice and the holding of a hearing.
Quantum of compensation for unfair termination
The maximum award of 12 months' salary was excessive given the respondent's approximately three years of service and prior disciplinary warnings; reduced to four months' salary (Kshs.181,512.40)
The trial magistrate gave no reasoned justification for the maximum award. The respondent had worked for about three years and had prior warning letters relating to fuel loss. Applying section 49 factors, the maximum award should be reserved for justified cases; four months' salary was appropriate in the circumstances.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions while making due allowance for the fact that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses
- An appellate court will not disturb a trial court's judgment if reasonably based on the evidence, and must not substitute its own view for that of the trial court
- The maximum compensation of 12 months' salary under section 49 is a ceiling, not a default, and must be justified by reasoned analysis of relevant statutory factors such as length of service and contributory conduct
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal against the award of 12 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination succeeds and the award is revised to four months' salary, i.e. Kshs.181,512.40
- 2.The rest of the grounds of appeal are dismissed
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (CMEL)
- CMEL NO. E1089 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over appeals from the trial magistrate's court in employment matters
Relief refused
#Setting aside the finding that the termination was unfair and unlawful
No evidence linking the respondent to fuel theft; seals not shown tampered with; no evidence of prior fuel level
Setting aside the finding that the procedure followed was unfair
Respondent was given only one day between the show-cause notice and the disciplinary hearing
Costs
Each party shall bear their own costs of the appeal.
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 trial court was justified in reaching the conclusion that the appellant had no justifiable reason for terminating the respondent's service
the respondent was not accorded reasonable time and opportunity to prepare his defense
The Court will therefore revise this to four months’ salary. That is to say Kshs.181,512.40. This ground of appeal therefore succeeds.
The appeal being partially successful, each party shall bear their own costs of the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Numerous typographical and garbled passages in the judgment, e.g. in the respondent's submissions
Judgment alternates between describing itself as an appeal from the trial court and referring to 'the Court of Appeal' principles without clarity
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "H. Young & Company (EA) Ltd v Njega (Appeal E036 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2216 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Appeal dated 21st February 2024, arising from CMEL NO. E1089 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2216/eng@2025-07-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.