Kichinda v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (Cause E046 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2308 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled Kenya Power unfairly dismissed a clerical officer, awarding her over Ksh 785,000 because the employer could not prove the misconduct allegations.
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 respondent had substantive justification for the summary dismissal of the claimant
- 2.Whether the disciplinary and termination procedure was fair
- 3.Whether the claimant is entitled to reinstatement
- 4.What remedies, if any, the claimant is entitled to
Key legal issues
#Substantive justification for summary dismissal
Dismissal lacked substantive justification; the audit report gave no particulars of the meters, work orders, or money transactions, and the causal link was lost
The claimant was in the revenue protection unit and rebilling was not her duty. The audit failed to identify the specific work orders or meters alleged to have been irregularly changed, and gave no dates or details of the alleged payments from private electricians, leaving the alleged network and revenue loss unproven. On the reasonable responses test the standard of proof was not met.
Employer's genuine belief under section 43 must be objective
The 'genuine belief' standard must be objectively assessed and interfaced with section 45(2) to prevent subjective application
The court held that sections 43 and 45 must be read together; an employer cannot merely assert belief in allegations without an objective examination of the substance of the reason, otherwise the statutory protection against unjustified dismissal would be eroded. The reason's sufficiency is judged by the court on the facts.
Reinstatement
Reinstatement refused as overtaken by time under section 12(3) of the ELRC Act
Although the suit was filed within three years of dismissal, the elapsed time of almost five years means reinstatement is barred by the statutory limitation in section 12(3) of the ELRC Act, notwithstanding the claimant's reliance on Benedict Abonyo Omollo.
Remedies
Compensation of 4 months' gross salary and one month's notice pay awarded; mitigation and 30 years of good service considered
The claimant worked from 1990 to 2020 with a good record and had hoped to retire within 84 months. Balancing these factors and the duty to mitigate (she ran a private business), four months' gross salary of Ksh 157,136.78 plus notice pay were deemed appropriate under the Employment Act.
Legal principles established
#- An employer's 'genuine belief' in a reason for dismissal under section 43 must be based on reasonable grounds and is subject to an objective threshold of substantiality interfaced with section 45(2)
- Where an employer fails to prove the reason for termination, the termination is unfair
- General allegations without particulars of the alleged misconduct lack substantive justification and render the termination unfair
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that employment was terminated unfairly
- 2.Compensation of Ksh 628,547.12 (4 months' gross salary)
- 3.Notice pay of Ksh 157,136.78
- 4.Costs of the suit to the claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, section 12; Employment Act, sections 41, 43 and 45
Relief refused
#Reinstatement without loss of benefits
Reinstatement is overtaken by time under section 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Salary arrears to retirement and salary expectation/benefits to retirement (alternative terminal dues)
The claimant must mitigate loss of employment; she was running a private business, which was part of the problems leading to the dismissal
General and exemplary damages (Ksh 2,000,000 sought)
Not awarded; the court instead fixed compensation and notice pay under the Employment Act
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the claimant.
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.
Accordingly, judgment is entered for the claimant against the respondent in the following terms;
a. Employment terminated unfairly, b. Compensation Ksh 628,547.12 c. Notice pay Ksh 157,136.78 d. Costs of the suit.
To protect the fundamental right not to be unjustifiably dismissed, a threshold of substantiality should be applied to the reasons for dismissal, assessed objectively.
The chain of the alleged network, involving customers, private electricians, and other employees that led to revenue loss for the respondent, is unclear.
This is overtaken with time under section 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act.
A compensation of 4 months' gross salary of Ksh. 157,136.78 is hereby deemed appropriate, amounting to Ksh. 628,547.12.
Issues in the judgment
#Gender pronouns for the claimant are inconsistent throughout (e.g. 'his supervisor', 'his termination' alongside 'she')
Claimant and case numbers are not identified anywhere in the judgment text provided
Inconsistent figures: Ksh 157,136.78 is described as monthly gross salary, but the monthly salary stated at the outset is Ksh 203,326
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kichinda v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (Cause E046 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2308 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated on the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2308/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.