Wambua v UAP Holdings PLC (Cause E762 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2476 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer cannot fire you just because you face criminal charges in court — it must first prove you actually did something wrong.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether there was a justifiable reason for termination
Termination was not substantively fair - guilt was unestablished and the employer made no independent investigations
The Claimant was terminated solely because of criminal charges that were still pending before the Milimani Chief Magistrate's Court. Her guilt had not been established through the criminal trial. The employer undertook no independent investigations to verify culpability or suitability. Under Sections 43(1) and 45(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act the employer bore the burden of proving fair and valid reasons, which it failed to discharge on a balance of probabilities.
Whether the Claimant was afforded procedural fairness under Sections 41 and 45(2)(c)
Although the Claimant was blindsided about who she could bring as a witness, she agreed to proceed unaccompanied, so the Respondent could not be faulted on representation
The Notice to Show Cause was issued and a disciplinary hearing held. The Industrial Relations Handbook did not limit witnesses to employees, and the invitation letter was ambiguous, leaving the Claimant blindsided. However, the Claimant did not dispute that she agreed to proceed without a representative, so the Section 41 requirement on accompaniment was satisfied. Notably, the Court did not make a declaration of procedural unfairness.
Entitlement to reliefs
Compensatory damages of seven months' gross salary and a certificate of service awarded; service pay declined
Having found the termination substantively unjustified, the Court exercised discretion under the Employment Act to award compensatory damages equivalent to seven months' gross salary, factoring in the length of the employment relationship and the circumstances of termination. The certificate of service followed from the admitted employment relationship. Service pay was excluded because the Claimant contributed to NSSF under Section 35(6).
Legal principles established
#- An employer cannot rely solely on pending criminal charges as a valid reason for termination without independent investigation establishing the employee's culpability or suitability
- An employer must prove the substance of the reasons for termination over and above proving the existence of such reason
- Where continued employment is genuinely prejudicial by pending charges, an employer may suspend pending the criminal determination rather than terminate
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant from employment was substantively unjustified
- 2.Compensatory damages of Kshs 1,613,549.00, equivalent to seven (7) months of the Claimant's gross salary
- 3.Interest on the damages at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 4.The Claimant shall have the costs of the suit
- 5.The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service within 14 days from the date of the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (court not stated to derive from a specific constitutional article)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wambua v UAP Holdings PLC (Cause E762 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2476 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E762 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2476/eng@2025-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.