Munyi v Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (Cause E146 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2487 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court ruled the EACC unfairly dismissed an employee over leaked documents, awarding three months' salary because she wasn't given evidence or heard on appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Valid and fair reason for termination
The Respondent proved on a balance of probabilities that it had a valid and fair reason - the Claimant's unauthorised disclosure of confidential investigation documents contrary to section 33(1) ACECA and Clause 14.8.1(viii) of the Respondent's Manual.
The Claimant admitted sharing the covering report, draft charges, list of exhibits and witness statements with the complainant without her supervisor's concurrence. Section 33(1) ACECA prohibits disclosure of investigation details without the Director's leave, and the Manual warrants summary dismissal for such disclosure. Her written response admitted the breach and sought leniency, satisfying sections 43(1) and 45(2)(a) and (b).
Fairness of the disciplinary process
The process was procedurally flawed: the Claimant was not given the evidence and witness statements in advance, was not notified of the outcome of the first disciplinary hearing, and her appeal was never heard.
Under section 41(1) of the Employment Act the employee must be informed of the allegations and allowed to respond. Supplying documents mid-hearing left no time to prepare, defeating the purpose of disclosure. The CEO's return of the lenient committee recommendation without notifying the Claimant of the first outcome was unfair, and the two-year silence on her appeal, coupled with section 45(5)(a) on handling of appeals, made the dismissal unjust and inequitable.
Reliefs
Compensatory damages of three months' gross salary awarded; gratuity declined; maximum compensation refused.
Although the reason for dismissal was valid, the process failed, warranting compensation under section 49. Three months' salary was considered appropriate given the length of employment and the Claimant's contribution to her own dismissal. Gratuity was excluded on the Claimant's own admissions during cross-examination.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must furnish an employee with the evidence and witness statements it relies on ahead of a disciplinary hearing; doing so mid-hearing impairs the employee's preparation and renders the process unfair.
- An employer who permits an appeal against dismissal but fails to hear and determine it denies the employee a chance to be heard, which is unjust and inequitable under section 45(5)(a) of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered against the Respondent
- 2.Compensatory damages awarded in the sum of Kshs 311,007.00 being equivalent to three (3) months of the Claimant's last gross salary
- 3.Interest on the award at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 4.The Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (sections 41, 43, 45 and 47) in a claim for unfair termination
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Munyi v Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (Cause E146 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2487 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E146 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2487/eng@2025-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.