Onyango v Bridge International Academies (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1458 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2288 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether there was valid reason to terminate the Claimant's employment
Yes - the Respondent had valid reasons to entertain a genuine belief that the financial loss was due to the Claimant's negligence as Finance Director.
The Claimant's Job Description, which he conceded in cross-examination covered fraud-prevention responsibilities, required him to put systems in place to obviate fraud. Email correspondence showed he was aware of flagged payroll variances, including a Ksh. 14,000,000 variance. The KPMG report attributed the loss of Ksh. 63,736,660 to lack of monitoring, oversight and reconciliation in the finance team under his supervision. Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the Respondent discharged its burden.
Whether the disciplinary process was fair
Partially - although notice and opportunity to be heard were substantially accorded, the Respondent's failure to provide the unredacted KPMG report and access to the work laptop data rendered the process procedurally unfair.
Section 41 of the Employment Act and section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act require the employer to notify the employee of the charges, allow a response, and provide the materials it will rely on. The Claimant requested the complete KPMG report but the Respondent ignored the request without justifying the redactions, and denied him access to data on his surrendered work laptop, compromising his right to prepare his defense.
Whether compulsory leave without contractual basis was lawful
Yes - following Mutwol v Moi University, absence of a contractual or handbook provision for compulsory leave does not render it illegal.
Neither the contract nor the Employee Handbook provided for compulsory leave, but the Court of Appeal in Mutwol held that no law prohibits placing an employee on compulsory leave and no contractual provision is required. That decision binds this court, so the Respondent could lawfully remove the Claimant from the workplace pending the disciplinary process.
Entitlement to reliefs
The Claimant was awarded salary for 22 days of August 2018, pay in lieu of 14 accrued leave days, one month's salary as compensation for the procedural unfairness, interest, release of personal effects, and half costs; notice pay and future income were refused.
Because the termination was substantively justified and only procedurally flawed, the court granted modest redress: salary for days actually worked up to 22nd August 2018 (at Ksh. 850,000 monthly salary, not the pleaded Ksh. 892,500), admitted accrued leave, and compensation equivalent to one month's salary under section 49 for the procedural flaws, plus interest and half costs given partial success.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in employment termination is on a balance of probabilities; the employer need only show grounds for a genuine belief that the employee committed the infraction.
- An employer is not obliged to consider an employee's written response to a show cause letter before inviting him to a disciplinary hearing, so long as the employee is given an opportunity to respond before a decision on his fate.
- An employee is under a duty to remain available to the employer and to attend disciplinary hearings when directed; he cannot attend only at his option and time.
- There need be no contractual provision for compulsory leave before an employee can be placed on such leave.
- Under section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, an employer must provide the employee with the information, materials and evidence it will rely on to make its decision.
Court orders
#- 1.Declared that the Respondent's decision to terminate the Claimant's employment was procedurally flawed and unfair on this account.
- 2.Declared that the Respondent's decision to send the Claimant on compulsory leave was lawful.
- 3.Declined the prayer for pay in lieu of notice.
- 4.Awarded salary for twenty-two (22) days of service in August 2018 in the sum of Ksh. 623,333.00.
- 5.Awarded pay in lieu of accrued leave for fourteen (14) days in the sum of Ksh. 396,666.00.
- 6.Ordered the Respondent to release the Claimant's personal effects once he undertakes the clearance process.
- 7.Awarded compensation for the unfair termination in the sum of Ksh. 850,000.00 (one month's salary).
- 8.Declined the prayer for compensation for loss of future income for five (5) years.
- 9.Awarded interest at court rates from the date of judgment.
- 10.Awarded the Claimant half costs of the suit.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (first-instance employment claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyango v Bridge International Academies (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1458 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2288 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2288/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.