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 AllowedCause No 1018 of 2017· [2025] KEELRC 2752 (KLR)

Kabura v Wil Developers and Construction Limited (Cause 1018 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 2752 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 October 2025
LNLINNET NDOLO
1,767 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that dismissing an employee without a notice to show cause and a hearing is unfair, even where misconduct is alleged.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed as a Personal Assistant to the Respondent's Executive Chairman at a monthly salary of Kshs. 25,000 from 5th May 2016, was summarily dismissed on 11th November 2016 by text message, followed by a termination letter dated 14th November 2016 accusing her of insubordination and gross misconduct for refusing to work late and pick files from the company's advocates. The Respondent alleged prior warnings for lateness, failure to register with NSSF/NHIF, loss of office property, and an undelivered payment voucher. The court framed two issues: whether the dismissal was lawful and fair, and whether the Claimant was entitled to the remedies sought. Relying on Section 41 of the Employment Act, the court found the dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair, since the Respondent's own Executive Chairman admitted that no notice to show cause was issued and no disciplinary hearing was held. The Claimant was awarded six months' salary in compensation (Kshs. 150,000), the court considering her short tenure but the Respondent's failure to afford her a hearing, plus one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 25,000), with interest at court rates from the date of judgment. Claims for terminal dues and exemplary damages were dismissed for lack of evidence, and the court held that unremitted statutory dues are payable to the respective bodies, not the Claimant. The Claimant received the costs of the case.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the summary dismissal was lawful and fair

Holding

The dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair because the Claimant was neither issued a notice to show cause nor subjected to a disciplinary hearing.

Reasoning

Section 41 of the Employment Act requires an employer, before termination for misconduct, to explain the reasons to the employee in a language they understand and to hear and consider any representations. The Respondent's Executive Chairman admitted no notice to show cause was issued and no disciplinary hearing was held. Following George Musamali v G4S Security Services Kenya Ltd, a valid reason plus fair procedure is required. Without notifying the employee of the charges, the employer fails its basic duty of establishing a valid reason.

p. 5
02

Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought

Holding

Awarded six months' salary in compensation and one month's salary in lieu of notice; claims for terminal dues and exemplary damages dismissed for lack of evidence; statutory dues not payable to the Claimant.

Reasoning

The court considered the Claimant's short stint in employment (about six months) but also the Respondent's failure to afford her a hearing in fixing compensation at six months' salary. No evidence supported terminal benefits and exemplary damages. Unremitted statutory dues belong to the respective statutory bodies, not the employee personally.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Before terminating employment for misconduct, an employer must explain the reasons to the employee and hear their representations as codified in Section 41 of the Employment Act; failure to notify the employee of the charges renders the termination substantively and procedurally unfair.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant: 6 months' salary in compensation of Kshs.150,000 and 1 month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs.25,000, totalling Kshs.175,000
  2. 2.The amount to attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
  3. 3.The Claimant awarded the costs of the case

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 42(1)
  • Employment ActSection 44(3) and (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • George Musamali v G4S Security Services Kenya Ltd
    [2016] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (not expressly cited in judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kabura v Wil Developers and Construction Limited (Cause 1018 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 2752 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No 1018 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2752/eng@2025-10-09

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