Margaret Onguti Migiro v Novo Science Bio Solutions Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employee's dismissal unfair because her employer hid key evidence and let a biased investigator hear her appeal, awarding her over Kshs 716,000.
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 has proved that it had a valid and fair reason to terminate the Claimant's employment
- 2.Whether the Claimant was accorded procedural fairness prior to the termination of her employment
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Claim
Key legal issues
#Valid and fair reason for termination
The Respondent failed to prove sabotage, interference with product culture, blocked communication or unauthorised absence, but proved incompatibility with colleagues, which constituted a valid and fair reason
Uncontroverted WhatsApp exchanges and an apology email from RW2 undermined the sabotage and contamination allegations; no evidence linked the Claimant to losses; absence was authorised. However, RW1's report and consistent testimony of RW2, RW3 and RW4 established a strained, dysfunctional working relationship amounting to demonstrable incompatibility under Section 45(2).
Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
The process was procedurally unfair because the employer withheld witness statements and the investigative report, and an investigator with an apprehension of bias sat on the appeal
The witness statements and RW1's report formed the basis of the notice to show cause and the reasons for termination, yet were never disclosed, leaving the Claimant unable to respond meaningfully. RW1, the investigator and principal complainant, was excluded from the disciplinary panel over bias concerns but nonetheless participated in determining the appeal, creating an appearance of bias contrary to natural justice.
Entitlement to reliefs
Compensation of two months' salary, half salary for March 2025, salary to 23rd April 2025, Kshs 7,500 reimbursement and a certificate of service awarded; housing allowance and May 2025 salary refused
Compensation was moderated by the short employment duration and the Claimant's contribution to the breakdown. Half salary during suspension was unjustified as no contractual or manual provision was disclosed. Salary to termination was payable absent proof of remittance. Housing allowance failed because remuneration was consolidated.
Legal principles established
#- An employer bears the burden of proving valid and fair reasons for termination under Sections 43(1) and 45(2) of the Employment Act
- An employee is entitled to disclosure of evidentiary documents in the employer's possession that would assist in preparing a defence to disciplinary allegations
- Procedural fairness includes the right to an impartial decision-maker, guarding against both actual bias and reasonable apprehension of bias
- Genuine and demonstrable incompatibility materially affecting the workplace is a valid ground for termination under Section 45(2)
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant from employment was procedurally flawed and unlawful
- 2.Award of Kshs 440,000.00 being compensatory damages equivalent to two (2) months of gross salary
- 3.Award of Kshs 100,000.00 in respect of unpaid half salary for March 2025
- 4.Award of Kshs 168,666.67 being prorated salary up to and including 23rd April 2025
- 5.Award of Kshs 7,500.00 as reimbursement of expenses incurred in repairing the Respondent's faulty water pump
- 6.Total award of Kshs 716,166.67 with interest at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 7.The Claimant shall have the costs of the suit
- 8.The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with her certificate of service within 14 days from the date of the Judgment
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 Act and the Labour Relations Act (first-instance unfair termination claim)
Relief refused
#Compensation equivalent to 12 months' salary
Award limited to two months given short employment duration and the Claimant's own contribution to the circumstances leading to termination
Unpaid housing allowance
Salary was consolidated at Kshs 220,000 inclusive of Kshs 20,000 house allowance, confirmed by pay slips and cross-examination
Salary for May 2025
Employment terminated on 23rd April 2025; salary awarded only up to that date
Reimbursement of Kshs 9,045 claimed for water pump repair
Awarded only to the extent of the unreimbursed balance of Kshs 7,500 supported by receipts
Costs
The Claimant shall have the 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.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the Claimant's termination was founded on a valid and fair reason.
Viewed cumulatively, the failure to furnish the Claimant with material evidentiary documents before the disciplinary hearing and the participation of RW1 in determining her appeal rendered the disciplinary process procedurally unfair.
the Court finds that the Respondent compromised the fairness of the disciplinary process by withholding crucial evidentiary documents from the Claimant.
(a) A declaration that the termination of the Claimant from employment was procedurally flawed and unlawful.
(f) The total award is Kshs 716,166.67.
The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with her certificate of service within 14 days from the date of this Judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#Anachronistic COVID-19 delivery boilerplate in a judgment dated September 2026
Judgment dated 25th September 2026 though the suit was instituted by Memorandum of Claim dated 9th October 2025 and Respondent's response dated 25th November 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Margaret Onguti Migiro v Novo Science Bio Solutions Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Cause No. E045 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2628/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.