Nyangechi v Urgent Cargo Logistics Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E011 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3744 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that a driver's dismissal after a self-involving accident was fair, because the employer followed proper disciplinary procedure.
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 trial court erred by finding that the Appellant was lawfully and procedurally terminated
- 2.Whether the trial court erred by not awarding the Appellant his terminal dues and reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellant was lawfully and procedurally terminated
Yes. The police abstract showing a self-involving accident was the reliable document; the Appellant lied to management that the road was blocked by police; and the disciplinary process (show cause, response, hearing notice, hearing, right to accompaniment, appeal right) satisfied sections 43, 45 and 41 of the Employment Act.
The court applied section 43's burden on the employer and section 47(5)'s allocation of the evidential burden, finding the Appellant failed to show unfair termination on a balance of probabilities. Relying on KRA v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi, the court held the employer need not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Section 41 compliance was demonstrated: show cause letter, response, disciplinary hearing invitation dated 10th December 2021 for 14th December 2021, minutes, right to be accompanied, and an appeal right in the dismissal letter, none of which was exercised.
Whether the discrepancy between the oral judgment of 18th December 2023 and the written judgment of 7th May 2024 vitiated the judgment
No. The ground fails; delay alone does not invalidate a judgment absent demonstrated prejudice or miscarriage of justice, and the trial court considered all evidence and submissions.
The court endorsed the Respondent's position that oral judgments may differ in form from written ones without the written version being flawed, and that a five-month delay is unfortunate but insufficient absent demonstrated prejudice. The court also held the trial court engaged with the substance of the dispute, so absence of express citation to each submission does not amount to non-consideration.
Whether the Appellant was entitled to terminal dues and reliefs
Partly. Having been fairly terminated, the Appellant was not entitled to compensation or notice pay; claims for salary arrears, leave pay, overtime, public holidays and service pay all failed, though terminal dues generally remain payable regardless of the fairness of termination.
The court reiterated that terminal dues are payable regardless of whether termination is fair or unfair, but on the evidence each claimed item failed: payslips covered the salary claim, leave approvals rebutted the leave claim, overtime and public holiday claims were not precisely pleaded, and NSSF membership excluded service pay under section 35(6). The court directed the Appellant to collect his certificate of service.
Legal principles established
#- The duty of the first appellate court is to re-evaluate the evidence on both law and fact and come to its own findings while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
- The standard of proof in employment termination disputes is a balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt; the employer need only prove reasons it genuinely believed to exist, and courts should not substitute their own view of reasonableness for that of the employer
- Section 41 of the Employment Act is couched in mandatory terms and failure to follow it renders the outcome unfair
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- 2.It is so ordered
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (Employment and Labour Relations)
- not stated in judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's judgment in an employment claim (ELRC Appeals Division); memorandum of appeal dated 16th January, 2024
Relief refused
#Setting aside the judgment dated 18th December 2023 and allowing the statement of claim dated 3rd August 2022
The court found the termination substantively and procedurally fair and the appeal devoid of merit
Claim for salary for November and December 2021
Payslips evidencing payment of the same were on record
Claim for leave pay
Respondent, as custodian of employment records under section 74 of the Employment Act, produced leave approvals and the Appellant failed to plead with precision that he never went on leave
Claims for overtime and public holidays
The claims were not precisely pleaded
Claim for service pay
The Appellant was a member of NSSF, which falls under the exceptions in section 35(6) of the Employment Act
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs 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 the upshot the Appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
It is so ordered.
This court therefore agrees with the trial court that the Appellant's termination was lawful substantively and procedurally and this ground of appeal fails.
the Police Abstract was the reliable document in this case which clearly stated that the accident was self- involving. It did not matter that there were pending investigations.
The standard of proof is on a balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt, and all the employer is required to prove are the reasons that it "genuinely believed to exist," causing it to terminate the employee's services
once the Court is persuaded that there existed reasonable grounds upon which a reasonable employer would consider termination of service as commensurate to the infraction perpetrated by the employee, judges as humans presiding over the matter must not substitute their own view or feeling of what is reasonable with that of an employer unless unavoidable in the circumstances.
Section 41 of the Employment Act is couched in mandatory terms. Where an employer fails to follow these mandatory provisions, whatever outcome of the process is bound to be unfair
there are terminal dues payable to an employee regardless of a fair or unfair termination.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states the show cause letter was dated 24th November, 2021 but the Respondent's submissions state it was dated 23rd November, 2021
Judgment records the show cause letter and response dates inconsistently within its own narration
The court states it is 'not convinced that the Appellant illustrated unfair termination occurred before the Respondent could be called upon to justify the grounds of absenteeism' although the termination was for reckless driving, not absenteeism
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyangechi v Urgent Cargo Logistics Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E011 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3744 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Appeal dated 16th January, 2024 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3744/eng@2025-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.