Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 3716 (KLR)

Ndalo v Kenya Airports Authority (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E529 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 3716 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 December 2025
AJABUODHA NELSON JORUM
4,992 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~20 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court upheld a security warden's dismissal over miraa at an airport, ruling the employer followed a fair process.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a Security Warden (Grade IV) employed by the Respondent from 17th January 2007, was terminated on 29th October 2018 on allegations that he facilitated the prohibited conveyance of miraa through passenger Terminal 1B aboard Emirates flight EK 722 to Dubai on 13th April 2018, contrary to the Managing Director's circular of 8th March 2018. He claimed three months' notice pay, pro rata leave pay, salary for the period of his appeal, and twelve months' salary as general damages, totalling Kshs. 3,320,366.00, contending the termination was substantively and procedurally unfair. The Respondent denied the claim, asserting valid reasons, a fair disciplinary process, and payment of terminal dues. At trial, the Claimant, in cross-examination, confirmed being a certified screener and admitted the disciplinary and appeal processes, notice pay, certificate of service and pension. The court framed two issues: whether the dismissal was unfair, and entitlement to reliefs. Applying sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, and adopting the reasonableness standard from British Leyland v Swift and the balance-of-probability standard from Kenya Revenue Authority v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi, the court held that air travel security is a key operational requirement; the Claimant was aware of the miraa prohibition, had a prior warning for a similar offence barely a month earlier, and a reasonable employer could dismiss on those facts. Procedural fairness was satisfied through show cause, hearing with union representation, and an appeal. All reliefs were refused and the claim was dismissed with costs to the Respondent on 19th December 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant was dismissed unfairly by the Respondent

Holding

The dismissal was fair both substantively and procedurally; the Respondent had valid and justifiable reasons and followed sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act

Reasoning

The Claimant, a certified screener working as a bag searcher, admitted awareness of the Managing Director's circular prohibiting miraa in aircraft cabins and had a prior warning for a similar offence barely a month earlier. Air travel is security-sensitive and screening of passengers and luggage is a key operational requirement. The Claimant was issued a show cause letter, responded, attended a disciplinary hearing with a union official, and was afforded an appeal which was heard and dismissed. The court declined to substitute its view for that of the employer.

p. 9
02

Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought

Holding

None of the reliefs were awarded; the claims were unsustainable given the finding of a valid and fair termination

Reasoning

Having found valid reasons and a fair procedure, the court held the claims unsustainable. Notice pay had been paid per the termination letter, no evidence proved accrued leave, salary for the appeal period would constitute unjust enrichment, and no compensation was due since the termination was lawful and fair.

p. 10
03

Discrepancy in dates between the verifying affidavit and the claim

Holding

Not fatal to the claim; the affidavit verifies the claim and need not be contemporaneously filed, and should have been raised as a preliminary point if considered fatal

Reasoning

The Respondent's counsel raised the difference in dates between the verifying affidavit and the claim. The court held that the purpose of a verifying affidavit is to verify the correctness of matters pleaded and it may be filed at any time before trial; counsel should have raised it as a preliminary point of law before trial if she considered it fatal.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • The reason for termination is what the employer genuinely believed to exist at the time of termination
  • A termination is unfair if the employer fails to prove a valid and fair reason related to the employee's conduct, compatibility or the employer's operational requirements
  • The court will not substitute its own view of a valid reason for that of the employer where reasonable grounds existed
  • The standard of proof in employment termination is on a balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt
  • The reasonableness test for dismissal admits a band of reasonableness within which an employer's decision must be upheld

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (first-instance employment claim)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ndalo v Kenya Airports Authority (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E529 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 3716 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3716/eng@2025-12-19

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