Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. E270 of 2023· [2026] KEELRC 2630 (KLR)

Jared Oduor Ondik v Skipkebe Limited

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Nairobi
29 September 2026
OMOnesmus Makau
2,339 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court upheld a warehouse manager's dismissal and ruled that a signed release agreement he accepted barred him from claiming more money.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent as Warehouse in-charge from 23rd June 1997, was summarily dismissed on 10th/11th November 2020 for issuing packets of tea to casual employees, including one Alloyce Otieno, without authority. On appeal, the summary dismissal was reduced to ordinary termination and the Claimant was paid Kshs.82,416.00, upon which he signed a Declaration of Release and Discharge. He then sued seeking a declaration that the termination was unfair, terminal benefits and compensatory damages of Kshs.1,054,158.00, plus costs. The Respondent denied unfairness, asserting a valid reason and fair procedure, and pleaded the discharge. The court framed two issues: whether the termination was unfair and unlawful, and whether the reliefs were merited. Applying sections 45(2) and 41 of the Employment Act, the court found the reason valid because the Claimant admitted giving out company property without prior authority, and his appointment and confirmation letters showed he lacked such power. Procedure was fair: he gave a written explanation, attended a disciplinary hearing where he was informed of the allegations and allowed a companion (though he came alone), and his appeal was heard, resulting in reduction of the dismissal. The court then held that the Declaration of Release and Discharge was a binding contract, applying Coast Bottlers Ltd v Kimathi Muthika and Trinity Prime Investment Ltd, and that the Claimant was estopped from further claims, save for his pension under the scheme rules. The suit was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the reason for termination was valid

Holding

Valid - the Claimant gave out employer's property without authority

Reasoning

The Claimant admitted giving tea to casual employees without seeking authority, claiming authority as Warehouse in-charge. The court verified from his appointment and confirmation letters that he lacked power to give out company property without prior authorization, so the reason was valid.

p. 9
02

Whether fair procedure under section 41 was followed

Holding

Yes - hearing, explanation and appeal were accorded

Reasoning

The Claimant explained the incident in writing, was invited to a disciplinary hearing, informed of the allegations, allowed to be accompanied by a fellow employee (but attended alone), participated and his explanation was considered. His appeal was heard and the summary dismissal reduced to normal termination with two months' salary.

p. 11
03

Effect of the Declaration of Release and Discharge

Holding

Binding contract; Claimant estopped from further claims except pension

Reasoning

The Claimant did not deny signing the discharge voluntarily. Following Coast Bottlers Ltd v Kimathi Muthika, the agreement was a complete and binding contract discharging the Respondent from further claims, regardless of adequacy of the amount paid.

p. 14

Legal principles established

#
  • For a termination to be fair, the employer must prove a valid reason and that fair procedure was followed
  • A voluntarily executed discharge/settlement agreement constitutes a binding contract and estops the employee from further claims, even if the amount is inadequate

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's suit is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
  2. 2.The Claimant is entitled to his pension subject to the relevant scheme rules.
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Section 45(2) of the Employment Act applied)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jared Oduor Ondik v Skipkebe Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E270 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2630/eng@2026-09-29

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