Ngatia v Baltic Textile Trading Limited (Cause E028 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2392 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled her dismissal unfair because her employer punished her twice for the same issue and denied her a proper hearing.
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 dismissal was unfair and unlawful.
- 2.Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether the reason for the summary dismissal was valid under section 45 of the Employment Act
The reason cited (violation of trust, failure to obey lawful command, falsifying stock records) was invalid. The stock-loss complaint had been dealt with finally by the warning of 1 November 2023 and could not be revived; the attempted theft of 21 January 2024 was abandoned, and the claimant in fact acted properly by recovering the goods and reporting to the area manager and police.
The dismissal letter relied on the earlier stock-loss matter resolved by the warning letter and lapsed performance evaluation. The show cause letter charged only the attempted theft of 21 January 2024, but the respondent did not pursue that charge at the hearing or in the dismissal letter. Reviving the resolved complaint amounted to double punishment, and the claimant had actually reported the theft. The respondent did not prove a valid and fair reason under section 45.
Whether the procedure followed was fair under section 41 of the Employment Act
No fair hearing was accorded. Although the claimant attended a hearing and signed its minutes, the minutes concerned the earlier resolved stock-loss complaint, not the attempted theft charged in the show cause letter.
Section 41 requires that the employee be heard and have representations considered on the grounds cited. The show cause letter cited the 21 January 2024 attempted theft, but the disciplinary minutes dealt with the earlier performance complaint that had been settled by warning. Since the hearing did not address the charged offence, the procedural requirement was not met.
Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act
Entitled. Four months' gross salary as compensation for the unfair termination plus one month's salary in lieu of notice, taking into account about five years of service and the prior warning.
Having found the dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair, the court awarded compensation under section 49. The award of four months' salary factored in the roughly five years of service and the earlier warning for improper performance of duties. Notice pay was awarded at one month's salary.
Whether the claimant was entitled to unpaid leave for the five years served
Awarded. The respondent asserted only 11 outstanding leave days but produced no leave records, so leave was computed for the full five years (105 days) at Kshs.84,000.
The respondent bore the evidential burden of substantiating its assertion that only 11 leave days were outstanding. Having failed to adduce leave records, the respondent's figure was not accepted, and the claimant's claim of 21 days per year for five years was allowed in full.
Legal principles established
#- A complaint against an employee that has been resolved cannot be revived later as a basis for summary dismissal, as that amounts to double punishment.
- For a termination to pass the fairness test there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
- An employer must afford the employee a hearing on the very charge cited in the show cause letter; minutes of a hearing on a different, already-resolved matter do not satisfy section 41 of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The dismissal of the claimant is declared unfair and unlawful.
- 2.The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant Kshs.204,000.00 comprising notice Kshs.24,000.00, compensation Kshs.96,000.00 and leave Kshs.84,000.00.
- 3.The award is subject to statutory deductions.
- 4.The claimant is awarded costs and interest at court rate from the date of the judgment.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the Employment Act (sections 41, 43, 45 and 49) - specific provision not cited in the judgment
Relief refused
#Claim for house allowance of Kshs.480,000
The claimant admitted in evidence that the contract provided that the salary was inclusive of house allowance.
Costs
The claimant is awarded costs and interest at court rate from the date of this judgment.
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.
In concluding this part, I must find and hold that the reason cited for the dismissal not valid within the meaning of Section 45 of the Employment Act.
The minutes do not mention the incidence of attempted shop lifting on 21st January, 2024 and therefore I find that no fair hearing was accorded to the claimant on the incidence that happened on 21st January, 2024 which was the matter for the disciplinary hearing.
a. The dismissal of the claimant is declared unfair and unlawful.
The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the following: Notice..............Kshs.24,000.00 Compensation................Kshs.96,000.00 Leave......................Kshs.84,000.00 Kshs.204,000.00
d. The claimant is awarded costs and interest at court rate from the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The compensation computation uses Kshs.24,000 while the stated monthly salary is Kshs.24,500.52; the judgment does not reconcile the figures.
The show cause letter as reproduced sets an explanation deadline of '2nd/01/2024', which precedes the letter's date of 22nd January 2024 - an apparent typographical error.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngatia v Baltic Textile Trading Limited (Cause E028 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2392 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2392/eng@2025-08-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.