Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedELRC Appeal No. E165 of 2025· [2026] KEELRC 2438 (KLR)

Aringo v Blue Nile Rolling Mills (Appeal E165 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2438 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
31 August 2026
MMM. Mbarũ
1,756 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed employers must hold a fair hearing before any dismissal, even when paying final dues, and employees can still challenge discharge vouchers.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal from the judgment of the learned magistrate in Thika MCELRC No. 10 of 2019 delivered on 25 March 2025, in which the appellant challenged the dismissal of his claim that his employment was unfairly and unlawfully terminated. The appellant, employed as a supervisor from August 2014, was issued with a notice to show cause on 28 January 2019 over allegations of overseeing the loading of unauthorised steel bars; the respondent's position was that other employees were interviewed and his explanation found unsatisfactory, and that termination was justified. The trial court found the summary dismissal justified but awarded terminal dues and the P9 form. Deciding the appeal without submissions from the parties, the court reviewed the record. It held that due process under section 41 of the Employment Act is mandatory, even in cases of gross misconduct and even where the employer converts summary dismissal into ordinary termination, relying on Isindu v Lavington Security Guards Ltd and Postal Corporation of Kenya v Tanui. No disciplinary hearing was held, and the offer of terminal dues could not cure that lapse. The court also held that a discharge voucher does not bar an employee from claiming lawful dues, and that payment of terminal dues should be unconditional; the cheque of Ksh. 32,703 had been cancelled without justification because of an allegedly incorrect signature. The appeal was allowed: the trial judgment was set aside, and judgment entered for the appellant with a declaration of unlawful and unfair termination, compensation of Ksh. 150,800, notice pay of Ksh. 30,160, terminal dues of Ksh. 32,703, and costs of both the appeal and the trial court.

Key legal issues

#
01

Mandatory nature of the section 41 hearing before termination or summary dismissal

Holding

The termination was unlawful and unfair because the appellant was not taken through any disciplinary hearing under the law or the respondent's internal policies, contrary to sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

Section 44 permits summary dismissal for gross misconduct, but due process under section 41 is mandatory in all cases, including gross misconduct. The employee must be invited to a hearing and allowed to make representations in the presence of another employee of his choice. No record of such a hearing was filed, and the learned magistrate's contrary conclusion was erroneous.

p. 5
02

Effect of the discharge and tabulated dues on the claim

Holding

Under section 35(4) of the Act, the discharge does not stop the employee from claiming what is lawfully due, and payment of terminal dues should be unconditional.

Reasoning

The respondent cancelled the cheque of Ksh. 32,703 because the appellant allegedly signed incorrectly. The court held that terminal dues should be paid unconditionally, and since January 2019 the appellant had been denied his dues without justification. The offered dues therefore remain payable.

p. 6
03

Quantum of remedies for unfair termination

Holding

The appellant, who served over five years with no record of warnings, was awarded one month's notice pay and five months' compensation.

Reasoning

The appellant earned a gross wage of Ksh. 30,160 and served diligently from 2014 to February 2019 with no disciplinary record. He was denied the right to continue earning a living, warranting five months' salary as compensation under section 49 principles, plus notice pay under section 35.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Due process under section 41 of the Employment Act is mandatory even where the employer converts a summary dismissal into a termination of employment
  • Payment of terminal dues or an offer to pay cannot cure a lapse in due process before termination
  • A discharge voucher does not bar an employee from claiming lawfully due amounts or challenging unfair labour practice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The judgment of the trial court in Thika MCELRC No. 10 of 2019 is set aside
  2. 2.A declaration that the employment terminated unlawfully and unfairly
  3. 3.Compensation of Ksh. 150,800
  4. 4.Notice pay of Ksh. 30,160
  5. 5.Terminal dues of Ksh. 32,703
  6. 6.Costs of the appeal and the trial court proceedings
On appeal from
Thika Magistrate's Court (ELRC)
Thika MCELRC No. 10 of 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's ELRC decision (statutory appeal from Thika MCELRC No. 10 of 2019)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Aringo v Blue Nile Rolling Mills (Appeal E165 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2438 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Appeal No. E165 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2438/eng@2026-08-31

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