Okello v Keda Ceramics International Company Limited (Appeal E064 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3688 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employee lost her appeal because her employer properly documented a disciplinary process before dismissing her for accepting supplier money.
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's employment was unlawfully terminated and whether the reasons for termination were fair
- 2.Whether she was entitled to the reliefs sought
- 3.Who should pay costs and interest of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellant's termination was procedurally fair under section 41 of the Employment Act
The termination was procedurally fair: the Appellant was issued a notice to show cause, responded in writing, was summoned to and attended a disciplinary hearing, and signed the minutes
The Court found the Appellant received a notice to show cause and responded by a handwritten letter dated 2nd August 2023 explaining why suppliers sent her money. She was summoned to a hearing on 4th August by letter of 3rd August, acknowledged receipt, attended, and signed the minutes of the disciplinary meeting. Having thus received the full benefit of section 41, she could not claim she was denied a hearing, and the termination was fair.
Whether the termination was substantively justified
The termination was for cause; the Court accepted the employer had demonstrated valid reasons
The Appellant admitted in her response to the notice to show cause that she received money from suppliers and undertook to be a better employee, acknowledging her lack of good judgment may have harmed the employer's reputation. On this record the Court held she was terminated for cause and that the termination, being within the law, was ipso facto fair, rendering the appeal against the trial court's finding misplaced.
Duties of a first appellate court
A first appeal is by way of retrial; the appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence itself while bearing in mind it did not see or hear the witnesses
The Court adopted the principle in Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd that a first appellate court is not bound by the findings of fact of the court below, must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it and draw its own conclusions, though making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses. The Court expressly warned itself accordingly before determining the appeal on the record.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must evaluate and examine the record and evidence presented before the trial court to arrive at its own conclusion, while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
- Termination of employment must accord with section 41 of the Employment Act irrespective of the charge against the employee; where the employer demonstrates the employee was notified of the charges, responded, attended and participated in a disciplinary hearing, the termination is fair
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (ELRC), Kisumu
- Kisumu CMCELRC No. E001 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from the Magistrates' Court (employment and labour relations)
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the trial court's judgment and substitution with an order dismissing the respondent's suit
The Court found the Appellant was given a hearing and terminated for cause, making the appeal misplaced
Costs of the appeal
The Appellant was condemned to costs in the lower court and was not to be saddled with additional costs
Costs
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs (each party to bear own costs of the appeal)
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.
This being a first appeal, I am enjoined to evaluate and examine the record before the Magistrates' Court and the evidence presented before it in order to arrive at my own conclusion.
The termination of an employee must accord with section 41 of the Employment Act. It matters not what the employee is charged with.
She signed the minutes for the disciplinary meeting held and as such cannot be heard to say she was not given a hearing by the Respondent.
She therefore was terminated for cause and with the Respondent having demonstrated she was given the full benefit of the law, the termination is ipso facto fair and within the law.
As the Appellant was condemned to costs in the lower court, she will not be saddled with additional costs despite her foolhardy attempt to appeal the decision. Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. Orders accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#The grounds of appeal inconsistently refer to the Appellant in the third person and describe the Respondent as having 'proved his case' although the Respondent is a company
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okello v Keda Ceramics International Company Limited (Appeal E064 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3688 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kisumu CMCELRC No. E001 of 2024 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3688/eng@2025-12-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.