Erick Lilungo Mukhwami v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a dismissal based on the employee's own written admission of falsifying his academic transcript, awarding only unpaid salary and a certificate of service.
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 Respondent had legitimate reasons to terminate the Claimant's employment and whether the decision was processed in accordance with fair procedure.
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs which he seeks through this action.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent had legitimate grounds to terminate the Claimant's employment
Yes - the Claimant admitted falsifying the transcript, giving the Respondent a legitimate ground under sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act.
The Claimant admitted in his response to the show cause letter that he lodged a falsified transcript to secure employment. His claim of coercion failed because the alleged coercing colleague denied it on oath and had no supervisory authority over him. An admitted charge required no further proof by the employer, so the KNEC letter's non-disclosure was immaterial.
Whether the termination followed fair procedure
Yes - the Claimant was given a show cause letter, a disciplinary hearing, and an appeal despite having admitted the charge.
Even though the charge was admitted, the Respondent still accorded the Claimant a disciplinary hearing and an appeal, satisfying due process. The appeal was properly declined since an admitted infraction gave no legitimate grounds to sustain it. The termination was therefore both substantively and procedurally justified.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Only salary for 17 days worked in October 2023 and a certificate of service; all other reliefs declined.
Having found the termination lawful, the court declined the declaration, reinstatement, notice pay, compensation and general damages. The leave claim failed on uncontroverted leave data and the Claimant's concession. Services ended on 18th October 2023, entitling him only to 17 days' salary, plus a statutory certificate of service under section 51.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employee admits a charge in response to a show cause letter, the employer is under no obligation to tender further evidence to prove the admitted charge.
- An admission of an infraction procured by a colleague's advice does not amount to coercion by the employer absent evidence of pressure by the employer.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent to compute and remit to the Claimant salary for the 17 days he was in service in October 2023.
- 2.The Respondent to issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service in terms of section 51 of the Employment Act.
- 3.The rest of the suit, other than the two reliefs granted, is dismissed.
- 4.Each party shall bear own costs of the suit.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act over employment disputes (Employment Act, sections 41, 43 and 51 applied)
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination was unlawful/improper
Termination was founded on the Claimant's own admission of falsifying the transcript and was substantively and procedurally justified.
Reinstatement
Termination was lawful; relief declined.
Compensation for unfair/wrongful termination
Termination was for a proper reason and in accordance with due process.
One month's salary in lieu of notice
Relief declined as termination was justified.
General damages for violation of rights
Not supported by evidence; the Claimant was heard and admitted the charge.
Pay for accrued leave days for 2023
Claimant conceded he was on 2023 annual leave when the show cause letter issued; uncontroverted leave data showed leave was taken.
Costs
Each party shall bear own costs of the suit.
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.
The Claimant having admitted the infraction, the Respondent was under no obligation to tender further evidence to prove the admitted charge.
The fact that he sought advice from a colleague, if at all, on how to respond to the show cause letter cannot imply coercion on him to respond to the letter in the way that he did.
Despite this admission, the Respondent still accorded him an opportunity to be heard. As such, the Respondent's decision was both substantively and procedurally justified.
Accordingly, the Respondent is ordered to compute and remit to the Claimant salary for the 17 days he was in service in October 2023.
The Respondent is also ordered to issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service in terms of section 51 of the Employment Act.
Other than the two reliefs which have been granted, the rest of the suit is dismissed.
Each party shall bear own costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment delivery date of 2026 appears inconsistent with a 2024 cause number.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Erick Lilungo Mukhwami v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Cause No E017 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2525/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.