Mutisya v G4S Kenya Limited (Cause E238 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2474 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded an employee over KShs 2 million because his dismissal process was flawed, even though his employer had valid reasons to fire him.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Valid and fair reason for termination
Only one of the allegations (failure to submit appraisal documents) amounted to insubordination constituting a valid and fair reason; the others were unsubstantiated or controverted
The Court examined each allegation. The credit-controller recruitment allegation was not controverted, the courier allegation was uninvestigated, and the intimidation allegation had no supporting evidence. However, the Claimant admitted receiving the email of 12th February 2018 directing him to avail appraisal documents and there was no evidence he complied, giving the employer a valid reason based on insubordination under Section 44(4)(e).
Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
The termination was procedurally unfair due to likelihood of bias of a panel member, ambush with new allegations at the hearing, and breach of the disciplinary policy on the panel Secretary
The Claimant had previously accused Mr Mwove of recruitment malpractice, making the likelihood of bias real; apparent bias alone disqualifies a member. Fresh allegations were introduced at the hearing without notice, ambushing the Claimant. Mr Luvai, a Security & Risk Manager, sat as Secretary contrary to Clause 12.3.6 requiring an HR person. These lapses rendered the process unjust and inequitable.
Discrimination and unfair labour practices
Claim failed; the Claimant did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination to shift the burden to the Respondent
CW2 gave no documentary evidence of the 5% salary increment, there was no evidence of bonus refunds or payments to colleagues, the car allowance consolidation was not disputed, and the car loan application was not proved. Without a prima facie case, the burden under Section 5(7) of the Employment Act never shifted to the Respondent.
Legal principles established
#- Procedural fairness extends beyond notice and a hearing; decision-makers in disciplinary proceedings must be impartial, and apparent bias suffices to disqualify a panel member
- An employer may summarily dismiss an employee who knowingly disobeys a lawful and proper command under Section 44(4)(e) of the Employment Act
- Lost earnings from termination to retirement age are anticipatory and not awardable
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant from employment was procedurally unfair and unlawful
- 2.The Claimant is awarded one (1) month's salary in lieu of notice, being Kshs 354,839.88
- 3.The Claimant is awarded the sum of Kshs 1,419,359.52 being compensatory damages equivalent to four (4) months of his last gross salary
- 4.The Claimant is awarded the sum of Kshs 283,871.90 being payment for accrued leave days for a period of 24 days
- 5.The total award is Kshs 2,058,071.30
- 6.Interest on the amount in (e) at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 7.The Claimant shall also have the costs of the suit
- 8.The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a certificate of service within 14 days from the date of judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act; reliefs founded on Articles 28, 41 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya (2010) and Sections 41, 44(4)(e), 45(2)(c), 5(7) and 28(4) of the Employment Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutisya v G4S Kenya Limited (Cause E238 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2474 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E238 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2474/eng@2025-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.