Ojenge v Mabati Rolling Mills Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E018 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2614 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employee's dismissal was substantively justified but procedurally unfair because the employer withheld the investigation report before the hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the reason for termination
The respondent had a genuine and reasonable basis to believe the claimant's negligence and comingling of customer stock constituted gross misconduct under Section 44(4)(c) of the Employment Act.
The claimant admitted she did not enquire how 105 pieces left the godown, that comingling occurred, and that she failed to file weekly stock reports. Under Section 43 the employer need only show reasons it genuinely believed to exist; the band of reasonable responses test applies. The court found the respondent could not be faulted for believing it had genuine grounds for gross misconduct.
Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
Termination was procedurally unfair because the respondent failed to avail the claimant a copy of the investigation report and her recorded statement before the hearing.
Although notice to show cause, response, hearing, minutes and appeal rights were substantially complied with under Section 41, an employee facing specific charges is entitled to the evidence and documents the employer intends to rely on. RW1 and RWII admitted the investigation report was not given to the claimant. This non-availment tainted the hearing, meaning the employer did not act in accordance with justice and equity under Section 45(4)(b).
Entitlement to reliefs
Declaration granted; compensation limited to two months' salary; certificate of service due under Section 51; deduction and passing-off claims failed.
Compensation under Section 49(1)(c) considered the claimant's 8 years 7 months of service, absence of prior misconduct, failure to appeal, and her substantial contribution to the termination. The deduction was explained as payment for days not worked, and the passing-off claim lacked particulars and evidence of detriment.
Legal principles established
#- For a fair termination the employer must show both a valid and fair reason and a fair procedure.
- The employer need only prove reasons it genuinely believed to exist, on a balance of probability.
- Failure to avail to an employee a copy of the investigation report relied on for disciplinary charges violates the right to fair hearing and vitiates the disciplinary process.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that termination of employment was unfair.
- 2.Equivalent of two (2) months salary Kshs. 226,448.00.
- 3.Certificate of service.
- 4.Parties shall bear their own costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance claim under the Employment Act for unfair termination (Sections 41, 43, 45, 49 and 51 of the Employment Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ojenge v Mabati Rolling Mills Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E018 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2614 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2614/eng@2025-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.