Riley Falcon Security Services v Ngisa (Appeal E051 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2934 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that giving an employee only 48 hours to answer disciplinary charges is unfair, and upheld most of the dismissal payout.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Adequacy of 48 hours to respond to a notice to show cause
The court upheld the Magistrate's finding that 48 hours was insufficient; the Respondent's ability to reply within 24 hours did not cure the shortness of the period
The court reasoned that fairness requires a reasonable time to respond to a notice to show cause. The fact that the Respondent answered within 24 hours did not absolve the employer, since the adequacy of the time afforded is judged objectively, not by the employee's early compliance. The Magistrate's finding on this score was therefore not disturbed.
Interference with the trial court's discretionary award of 12 months' compensation
The appellate court declined to interfere with the Magistrate's discretionary award of 12 months' salary compensation, finding no improper exercise of discretion
The court restated the principle that quantum of compensation is discretionary and an appellate court may only intervene where the trial court was plainly wrong, made a serious mistake, ignored a material factor, relied on an improper factor, or seriously misweighed proper facts. None of these was demonstrated, and the court declined to substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court.
Award of one month's salary in lieu of notice
The notice pay award was wrongly granted because the amount had already been computed and paid in the Respondent's final dues; it was removed from the final sum payable
The court found this to be the only improperly decided issue. Since the notice pay was included in the final dues paid to the Respondent, awarding it again as a relief would result in double payment. The court therefore deleted this head from the decretal sum while leaving the rest of the judgment intact.
Legal principles established
#- A 48-hour period to respond to a notice to show cause is not a reasonable time and does not afford an employee adequate time to prepare a defence
- An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's exercise of discretion on quantum unless the trial court was plainly wrong or made a serious mistake
- Notice pay already computed and paid in final dues cannot be awarded again as a relief
Court orders
#- 1.The finding of the Learned Magistrate on the adequacy of time to respond to the notice to show cause upheld (not disturbed)
- 2.The award of Kshs. 15,141/- being one month's salary in lieu of notice removed from the final sum payable by the Appellant, having been computed in final dues
- 3.The award of Kshs. 181,703/- as 12 months' salary compensation, Kshs. 75,709/- gratuity, certificate of service and interest upheld
- 4.Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal
- On appeal from
- Magistrate's Court at Winam
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over appeals from the Magistrate's Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act); not expressly cited in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Riley Falcon Security Services v Ngisa (Appeal E051 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2934 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2934/eng@2025-10-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.