Sheer Logic Management Consultants v Baha (Appeal E253 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2867 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer who fabricated disciplinary letters lost its appeal and must pay a wrongly dismissed worker over KShs 193,000 plus costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Appellant unfairly dismissed the Respondent
- 2.Whether the damages awarded by the trial court should stand
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent's summary dismissal was procedurally fair under sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
The termination was procedurally unfair: the Appellant failed to prove service of the invitations to the disciplinary hearings, and the fabricated correspondence meant no hearing was held before the termination on 26th May 2021.
The court scrutinised the alleged email and postal service of the hearing invitations and found no proof of service - the email correspondence was not exhibited, the email address was not stated, and the alleged caller did not testify, rendering that evidence hearsay. It further concluded that the hearing invitation and dismissal letters were fabricated, and that the employer did not account for the period after the Respondent was sent home on 26th May 2021. The employment was therefore terminated without a hearing, breaching section 41.
Whether the Appellant discharged the burden of proving a valid and fair reason for termination under sections 43 and 45(2)
No: having fabricated the letters and taken a flawed position, the Appellant did not prove the reason for the termination that occurred on 26th May 2021.
The court found the termination occurred on 26th May 2021 when the Respondent was told not to report back, evidence the Appellant did not challenge. Because the Appellant's case was built on the fabricated post-dated letters dated 24th and 28th June and 1st July 2021, it never presented a reason for the actual 26th May termination, and so failed to discharge the legal burden under section 43 and section 45(2).
Whether the trial court's compensatory award of KShs. 200,000 under section 49(1)(c) should be disturbed
The award was reduced to KShs. 193,171 (11 months' gross salary). Although the magistrate gave no reasons for the sum - an error in law - the Appellant did not invoke any recognised ground for disturbing a discretionary award, and the court itself, exercising its discretion, fixed the compensation at 11 months.
An appellate court may only interfere with a discretionary award where an irrelevant factor was considered, a relevant factor omitted, or a wrong principle applied, none of which the Appellant advanced. The magistrate's failure to give reasons for the sum was nonetheless an error of law. The appellate court then re-exercised the discretion under section 49(1)(c), considering the procedural and substantive failures, the Appellant's uncandid conduct in presenting fabricated documents, deterrence, and the Respondent's length of service.
The role of a first appellate court
A first appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, while making allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.
Relying on Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd & Others, the court restated the classic principles governing a first appeal: it is by way of retrial, the court must re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, but must bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should make due allowance for that disadvantage.
Legal principles established
#- Fairness in termination involves two statutory aspects under section 45 of the Employment Act - procedural and substantive justification - and the absence of either renders the termination unfair.
- Where an employer affords an employee an adequate opportunity to be heard but the employee fails to avail himself of it, the employer may proceed to decide, and the employee cannot thereafter claim procedural unfairness, provided the decision is substantively justified.
- The party asserting service of a document bears the burden of proving it.
- An appellate court will not disturb an award made in the exercise of statutory discretion unless it is shown that the trial court took into account an irrelevant factor, omitted a relevant factor, or applied an incorrect principle resulting in an erroneous, excessive or unduly low award.
Court orders
#- 1.The award of KShs. 200,000 for unfair termination is reduced to KShs. 193,171 (equivalent to 11 months' gross salary)
- 2.The appeal is otherwise unsuccessful and the trial court's finding of unfair termination is upheld
- 3.The costs of the appeal are awarded to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (trial court in the employment claim)
- Not stated in the judgment text provided
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the trial court's judgment (appeal on law and fact in an employment dispute under the Employment Act)
Relief refused
#The Appellant's challenge to the finding of unfair termination and to the compensation award
The court found the termination was unfair and the award was not shown to have been made in error of principle, save for the quantum adjustment
Costs
The costs of this appeal are awarded to the Respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In conclusion, the Appellant's appeal is considerably unsuccessful. Accordingly, the costs of this appeal are awarded to the Respondent.
As such, the award of KShs. 200,000 for unfair termination is reduced to KShs. 193, 171.
Fairness in the termination of an employee's employment involves two statutory aspects, as outlined in section 45 of the Employment Act: procedural and substantive justification. The absence of either or both of these aspects renders the termination unfair.
This leads me to conclude that this letter, just like the others, was a fabrication intended solely to deceive the trial Court.
Legal precedents must be used purposefully and in a relevant manner.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the Respondent's monthly salary under the first contract as 'KShs. 561', which is inconsistent with the salary of 'Kshs. 17,561' admitted by the Appellant; this appears to be a typographical error.
The judgment contains an internal inconsistency as to the date of the disciplinary hearing: earlier the Appellant is said to have scheduled the first hearing for 24th June 2021, but the court's analysis describes the hearing as scheduled for 28th June 2021 via a letter dated 24th June 2021.
Typographical error in the date of the termination: '26th May 202' where 2021 is plainly intended.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sheer Logic Management Consultants v Baha (Appeal E253 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2867 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2867/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.