Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELRC 2519 (KLR)

Idasa v Lesaffre Kenya Limited (Cause E636 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2519 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 September 2025
LNLinnet Ndolo
2,377 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded a manager over Kshs 1.2 million because his employer fired him for sexual harassment without letting him properly defend himself.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Antony Idasa, employed by Lesafire Kenya Limited as Production Manager from 19th June 2023, was summarily dismissed on 15th December 2023 for alleged sexual harassment of two female employees. He sued, seeking declarations, expungement of records, an apology, waiver of a non-compete clause, notice pay, and twelve months' salary in compensation. The Respondent defended the dismissal, asserting the allegations were investigated, the Claimant was heard at a disciplinary hearing, and that dismissal was necessary to maintain a safe workplace. The Court framed two issues: the lawfulness and fairness of the dismissal, and entitlement to remedies. It held that although sexual harassment is a serious offence amounting to gross misconduct if proved, the allegations were not proved at the shop floor. The Claimant received the accusation letter the day before the hearing, learned the complainants' identities only at the hearing, was denied cross-examination, and first saw the complainants' statements during litigation. The similarity in the two statements led the Court to infer they were guided by the General Manager, Ayoub Nine. No evidence supported the Respondent's claim that the complainants declined to attend out of fear, and the Claimant was denied a right of appeal. The dismissal was found wrongful for want of substantive justification and procedural fairness. The Court awarded four months' salary in compensation, one month's notice pay, expungement of harassment records, interest, and costs, while refusing the defamation apology claim as unproved and the non-compete waiver as moot.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair

Holding

Dismissal was wrongful: allegations of sexual harassment were not proved and the Claimant was denied procedural fairness

Reasoning

The Claimant was ambushed with serious allegations without disclosure of the complainants' identities and without an opportunity to cross-examine them. The two complainants' statements showed similar content and format, leading the Court to infer they were guided by the General Manager. No evidence supported the claim that complainants were invited but too scared to attend; they also stayed away from court where in-camera proceedings were available. The Claimant was denied a right of appeal against the termination.

p. 5
02

Whether remedies sought were payable

Holding

Four months' salary compensation, one month's notice pay, expungement of harassment records, interest and costs granted; defamation apology and non-compete waiver refused

Reasoning

In assessing compensation the Court considered the length of service and the finding that the Claimant was denied an opportunity to defend himself against serious allegations. Notice pay followed the dismissal without notice. Expungement of records was directed. The defamation claim was not proved and the non-compete waiver had become moot.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee must receive prior notice of clear charges, with lead time to prepare and present a defence, for an employer to comply with s. 41 of the Employment Act
  • Denial of the opportunity to face accusers at a disciplinary hearing renders the reason for termination unproved and the dismissal unfair

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration implicit in finding that dismissal was wrongful for want of substantive justification and procedural fairness
  2. 2.Award of 4 months' salary in compensation (Kshs. 1,013,136)
  3. 3.Award of 1 month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 253,284), total Kshs. 1,266,420
  4. 4.Respondent directed to expunge all records of sexual harassment against the Claimant from its human resource records
  5. 5.Interest at court rates from date of judgment until payment in full
  6. 6.Claimant awarded costs of the case
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (s. 45, s. 41); not expressly stated in judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Idasa v Lesaffre Kenya Limited (Cause E636 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2519 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2519/eng@2025-09-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.