Mureithi v CCI Kenya Limited

6. According to the Claimant, the Head of Talent & Culture did not receive the reprimand well and thereafter adopted a condescending attitude towards her, particularly after he learnt about her remuneration. 7. The Claimant states that matters worsened after the Chief People Ocer proceeded on leave. She avers that during this time, she was issued with a Notice to Show Cause, invited to attend a disciplinary hearing, and ultimately served with a letter terminating her employment. Although she lodged an appeal against the decision, the Respondent upheld the termination. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the Claimant contends that the termination of her employment was unfair and inhumane and consequently seeks the following reliefs against the Respondent: a. A declaration that the Claimant’s termination from the Respondent’s employment was unprocedural, unfair and unlawful and unconstitutional; b. Compensation for unfair termination of Kshs 6,000,000.00. c. Unpaid house allowance of Kshs 2,160,000.00. d. Exemplary and malicious damages for the unfair disciplinary process. e. Punitive and aggravated damages; f. Damages for constitutional violations. g. Interest on (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) above from the date of termination to the date of payment in full. h. Costs of the suit. i. Any other relief that the court may deem appropriate to grant. 9. The Respondent opposed the Claim through its Memorandum of Response dated 11th August 2025, denying the Claimant's allegations. In particular, it contends that the alleged negative treatment by the Head of Talent & Culture was never brought to the attention of the Chief People Ocer. 10. The Respondent further avers that the Notice to Show Cause was issued following concerns regarding the Claimant's poor work performance as observed by her immediate supervisor, the Head of Talent & Culture. It maintains that the disciplinary process culminating in the Claimant's termination complied with both the substantive and procedural requirements of fairness. Accordingly, the Respondent has urged the Court to dismiss the Claim with costs. 11. The matter proceeded for hearing on 21st January 2026, during which both parties tendered oral evidence in support of their respective cases. Claimant’s Case 12. The Claimant testied in support of her case and for starters, she adopted her witness statement to constitute her evidence in chief. She further produced the documents led alongside her Memorandum of Claim as exhibits before the Court. 13. The Claimant testied that the Head of Talent & Culture made several disparaging remarks to her, including that he could employ four (4) people using her salary, that he could dismiss her and justify the decision by citing the Constitution, that she possessed very basic Microsoft Excel skills for her role, and that he had never encountered incompetent people until joining the Respondent. She further stated https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2606/eng@2026-07-31 2

page 2 of 13

that the said line manager had promised to give her a gift on her work anniversary, which "gift" turned out to be her letter of termination. 14. The Claimant maintained that her job description did not require advanced prociency in Microsoft Excel. She further testied that she was issued with a Notice to Show Cause dated 3rd July 2024 directing her to respond by 12.00 p.m. on 2nd July 2024, a deadline which had already lapsed and which she described as impossible to comply with. 15. She stated that notwithstanding the erroneous deadline, she responded to the allegations by an email dated 4th July 2024. In her response, she explained the projects she had undertaken, outlined her role in each, and claried that some of the responsibilities referred to in the notice fell within the mandate of other members of sta. 16. The Claimant further testied that she received an invitation to attend a disciplinary hearing at 10.39 p.m. on 5th July 2024, requiring her to appear on Monday, 8th July 2024 at 2.00 p.m. She contended that the invitation was sent to her ocial work email, which she could not access outside working hours, thereby denying her adequate time to prepare her defence. 17. She further stated that she was invited to the verdict session, which was less than the 24-hour notice prescribed under the Respondent's Human Resource Policy Manual. According to the verdict, her employment had been terminated on the grounds of failing to obey lawful commands and neglecting to perform her duties carefully and properly, contrary to Section 44(4)(c) and (e) of the Employment Act. 18. It was the Claimant's case that the disciplinary process was tainted by bias and that the outcome had been predetermined. She contended that the allegations against her were unsupported by documentary evidence and that the Respondent failed to give due consideration to her response. 19. The Claimant maintained that she had consistently been a high-performing employee and asserted that the allegation of failing to obey lawful instructions was unfounded. 20. She further testied that the disciplinary panel failed to consider evidence that would have exonerated her, including the scope of her responsibilities in relation to the tasks she was alleged to have neglected. 21. The Claimant further contended that the Respondent ignored the real issue, which was the malicious conduct of the Head of Talent & Culture, who had openly declared his intention to ensure her termination from employment. She added that the Respondent failed to take into account the complaints she had previously lodged against him. 22. The Claimant further asserted that the Respondent failed to adhere to its own Human Capital Policy Manual and conducted the disciplinary process in a hurried manner that was prejudicial to her. 23. She maintained that prior to the disciplinary proceedings, she had never been informed that her performance was wanting, nor had she been issued with any warning letter, placed on a performance improvement plan, or subjected to performance reviews highlighting any shortcomings. 24. The Claimant further testied that she was never furnished with any particulars or evidence of the alleged persistent insubordination or wilful refusal to comply with the instructions of the Head of Talent & Culture. 25. The Claimant further contended that the Notice to Show Cause did not indicate that she was being accused of the oences of disobeying lawful commands or neglecting her duties. In her view, the allegations levelled against her were incomprehensible and inconsistent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2606/eng@2026-07-31 3

page 3 of 13

Respondent’s Case 26. The Respondent called one witness, Patrick Handah, who testied as RW1. Mr. Handah introduced himself as the Respondent's Senior Manager, Employee Relations. Equally, RW1 adopted his witness statement to constitute his evidence in chief and produced the Respondent's list and bundle of documents as exhibits before the Court. 27. RW1 testied that the Claimant's immediate supervisor, the Head of Talent & Culture, raised concerns regarding her work performance, citing signicant execution gaps that allegedly disrupted the Respondent's operations. 28. He stated that the Claimant had been instructed by her supervisor to complete performance data but failed to do so despite receiving guidance on how to process the information. 29. RW1 further testied that on 21st June 2024, the Claimant failed to share with her supervisor certain links required to pilot her process and subsequently failed to respond to an email dated 25th June 2024 seeking an update on the same. 30. He further stated that the Claimant did not respond when requested to provide an update on the preparation of documents required for the behavioural assessment report assigned to her. 31. RW1 also testied that the Claimant failed to review the performance data relating to Team Leaders, Operations Managers and Senior Operations Managers. According to him, despite receiving guidance on the task requirements, she only submitted incomplete data. 32. He averred that, as a result of these shortcomings in the Claimant's performance, the Respondent issued her with a Notice to Show Cause dated 3rd July 2024. The notice required her to respond to allegations of misconduct, namely failure to obey lawful instructions within the scope of her duties and neglect to perform her work carefully. In his view, the date (2nd July 2024) by which the Claimant was required to issue a response was erroneous. 33. RW1 stated that the Claimant responded to the Notice to Show Cause by email dated 4th July 2024, following which her supervisor submitted feedback on her work performance. He added that the Claimant did not tender any objections regarding the date of 2nd July 2024. 34. He further testied that, by an email dated 5th July 2024, the Claimant was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing scheduled for 8th July 2024. According to RW1, the invitation set out the particulars of the hearing and informed the Claimant of her right to be accompanied by a witness of her choice. 35. RW1 maintained that the Claimant neither objected to the notice convening the disciplinary hearing nor sought additional time to prepare her defence. 36. He further testied that the disciplinary hearing proceeded as scheduled in the presence of the Claimant, her supervisors, himself and three (3) other employees. He added that the Claimant indicated that her witness was available on call. 37. RW1 stated that the minutes of the disciplinary hearing were forwarded to the Claimant on 10th July 2024 for her review. Thereafter, on 11th July 2024, she was issued with a letter terminating her employment, which set out the reasons for the termination, her terminal dues and her right of appeal. 38. He further testied that the Claimant lodged an appeal, which was considered by the disciplinary committee. The committee ultimately upheld the decision to terminate her employment. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2606/eng@2026-07-31 4

page 4 of 13

39. It was RW1's evidence that the disciplinary process was conducted fairly and in compliance with the Employment Act. He maintained that the disciplinary committee considered both the Claimant's representations and those of her supervisor. He further asserted that there were material inconsistencies between the explanations the Claimant gave in response to the Notice to Show Cause and those she oered during the disciplinary hearing. 40. RW1 further testied that the Respondent computed and paid the Claimant's terminal dues in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Act. Submissions 41. It was submitted on behalf of the Claimant that the Respondent ought to have conducted investigations in line with Clause 10.8 of its Human Capital Policy to establish if she had failed to perform her work to the required standard or had failed to follow a command. 42. The Claimant posited that the investigations would have assisted the Respondent to determine whether or not the oences laid out against her warranted termination of her employment as provided for in the Respondent’s Human Capital Policy Manual. 43. The Claimant stated in further submission that the failure to involve the Chief People Ocer in the disciplinary process was an indication of malice. 44. Referencing the case of Muigai v Kuku Foods Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 777 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1354 (KLR) (8 May 2025) (Judgment), the Claimant submitted that the Respondent should have demonstrated that her oences t the category of dismissal. 45. It was further submitted that the allegations laid out against the Claimant were premature in that the Head of Talent & Culture wrote an email dated 8th July 2024, a few minutes before the disciplinary hearing, raising concerns that were not mentioned to the Claimant before the disciplinary hearing. 46. The Claimant further posited that the Respondent’s claims were not proven in light of her evidence appearing in the appeal letter and the response to the Notice to Show Cause. 47. It was further submitted that the generalized allegations that the Claimant had negligently performed her work did not satisfy the required threshold. In the Claimant’s view, the allegations largely fell under the category of poor performance which was avoided by the Respondent so as not to create an obligation to place her under the performance improvement process provided in its Human Capital Policy Manual. 48. Placing reliance on the cases of Kinyanjui v Rural Electrication & Renewable Corporation (Cause E709 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 1824 (KLR) (12 July 2024) (Judgment) and Mithano v Standard Chartered Bank of Kenya Limited (Cause E018 of 2021) [2026] KEELRC 191 (KLR) (29 January 2026) (Judgment), the Claimant submitted that the Respondent should have accorded her reasonable time to prepare her response to the Show Cause and for the hearing as required in its manual. 49. It was the Claimant’s position that the rushed process demonstrated a process that was meant to terminate her employment with whatever means necessary. 50. In the same vein, the Claimant submitted that it was the Respondent’s duty to ensure reasonable time was granted and not to solely rely on her requests for more time. 51. It was further submitted that the Claimant was not provided with an opportunity for her witness, Esther Kamau, to present evidence in support of her case. According to the Claimant, this denial https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2606/eng@2026-07-31 5

page 5 of 13

undermined the provisions of Section 41 of the Employment Act which entitled her to be accompanied by a witness of her own choice. 52. The Claimant further contended that she was denied an opportunity to cross–examine the Respondent’s witness, Daisy, and the Head of Talent & Culture. On this score, it was contended that the Senior Human Capital Business Partner took the role of examining Daisy on the Claimant’s behalf. Citing the case of Akanga v Capital Markets Authority (Cause 1187 of 2014) [2022] KEELRC 12773 (KLR) (6 October 2022) (Judgment), the Claimant submitted that the disciplinary panel was therefore not an impartial arbiter. 53. On the Respondent’s part, it was submitted that the Claimant’s consistent refusal to respond to the queries from her manager is tantamount to wilful neglect of duty and insubordination. 54. In this regard, the Respondent contended that multiple requests and instructions were issued to the Claimant through written communications, managerial guidance, and formal engagement processes to which she ignored and/or neglected to provide feedback or explanations. 55. It was further submitted that the Claimant was expressly instructed to complete performance data processing for Team Leaders, Operations Managers, and Senior Operations Managers. That despite being personally guided on the processing methodology and directed to seek assistance from her colleague, the Claimant submitted incomplete raw data lacking targets and weightage. 56. The Respondent further submitted that the Claimant’s omission to map the business enablement function was a clear failure to follow a command that was within her scope and duty to follow. 57. Referencing the cases of Walter Ogal vs Teachers Service Commission (2013), and Peter Wangai vs Egerton University (2019) eKLR, the Respondent urged the Court to observe, from the evidence adduced during the hearing and evidence adduced that the Claimant engaged in several acts and omissions in the course of her employment, particularly in her reporting to her manager, that constituted valid reasons for the termination of her employment. 58. With regards to procedural fairness, the Respondent submitted it satised the requirements under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act. Analysis and Determination 59. Upon considering the pleadings, the evidence on record and the parties' respective submissions, the Court nds that the following issues arise for determination: i. Whether the Respondent has established a justiable reason for terminating the Claimant's employment; ii. Whether the Respondent complied with the procedural requirements of fairness in eecting the Claimant's termination; and iii. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. Justiable Cause? 60. Under Sections 43 and 45(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act, the burden rests on an employer to prove that there existed a justiable cause for terminating an employee's employment. This entails demonstrating the specic grounds upon which the decision to terminate the employment was founded. Further, the reasons relied upon must be valid, fair, and related to the employee's conduct, capacity or compatibility, or be based on the employer's operational requirements. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2606/eng@2026-07-31 6

page 6 of 13

61. In the present case, the record bears that the Respondent terminated the Claimant's employment on the grounds that she had failed to follow a command which was within the scope of her duties and had neglected to perform her duties carefully. 62. In respect of the rst ground for termination, the Respondent alleged that the Claimant failed to comply with lawful instructions issued by her manager. Specically, it was alleged that despite receiving guidance and being directed to seek further assistance from her colleague, Daisy, the Claimant failed to complete the performance data for the Operations Department. 63. The Respondent further alleged that although the Claimant had been instructed to map the enablement function for the behavioural assessment process, she only commenced the task after receiving written reminders on 21st June 2024 and again on 24th June 2024 upon her manager's return to the oce. 64. It was further alleged by the Respondent that, despite requests made during the week commencing 10th June 2024, the Claimant failed to share with the Talent & Culture team the links required to pilot the behavioural assessment process. It was its case that, upon returning to the oce on 24th June 2024, the Claimant's manager again requested her to share the links, but she failed to do so. Consequently, he sent her an email on 25th June 2024 seeking an explanation for her failure to comply, to which she did not respond. According to the Respondent, the Claimant eventually shared the documents on 1st July 2024 after receiving a further verbal reminder. 65. The Respondent also accused the Claimant of informing the newly appointed Head of Operations that her manager had cancelled or rescheduled a session intended to brief the new employee on the existing performance and engagement data. It was alleged that when her manager sought an explanation regarding what he considered to be an inaccurate account of the events, the Claimant failed to respond. 66. A further allegation was that the Claimant failed to provide a status report on the completion rate of the behavioural assessment process as requested during the morning brieng of 24th June 2024 before leaving work for the day, thereby necessitating her manager to prepare and circulate the report himself. 67. In essence, the rst limb of the reasons advanced by the Respondent for terminating the Claimant's employment centered on allegations of insubordination arising from her failure to comply with lawful and reasonable instructions issued by her direct supervisor. 68. Insubordination constitutes a ground for summary dismissal under Section 44(4)(e) of the Employment Act, which provides as follows: [44] (4) Any of the following matters may amount to gross misconduct so as to justify the summary dismissal of an employee for lawful cause….. (e) an employee knowingly fails, or refuses, to obey a lawful and proper command which it was within the scope of his duty to obey, issued by his employer or a person placed in authority over him by his employer; https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2606/eng@2026-07-31 7

page 7 of 13

69. In the Black's Law Dictionary (10th Edition), insubordination is dened as: “ A willful disregard of an employer's instructions, esp. behavior that gives the employer cause to terminate a worker's employment. 2. An act of disobedience to proper authority; esp., a refusal to obey an order that a superior ocer is authorized to give.” 70. The Claimant consistently denied the allegations levelled against her, both in her response to the Notice to Show Cause and in her appeal against the decision to terminate her employment. 71. In her response to the Notice to Show Cause, the Claimant explained that she had sought assistance from her colleague, Daisy, on two (2) occasions regarding the verication of the performance data. According to the Claimant, the formulas were not working and Daisy informed her that she was occupied with other assignments and advised her to seek assistance elsewhere. 72. The Claimant further stated that she and her line manager held several meetings, including one conducted outside the oce, to review the formulas. She asserted that the formulas kept changing to the extent that her manager admitted that he was also confused. 73. In support of her appeal, the Claimant produced screenshots of WhatsApp messages exchanged with her line manager on 20th June 2024. The messages show that the Claimant enquired whether he had reviewed the stack ranking data, to which he responded that he had not and requested 30 minutes. Shortly thereafter, the line manager asked whether the Claimant was available, and she responded armatively. The screenshots further indicate that following their meeting, the Claimant requested Daisy's contact details, which the line manager shared. 74. From the minutes of the disciplinary hearing, Daisy conrmed that she met with the Claimant, who informed her that she was still experiencing diculties with the formulas. Daisy further stated that although the Claimant requested her to analyse the data on her behalf, she was unable to do so because she had other pending assignments. 75. The Claimant also relied on screenshots of WhatsApp messages showing that she had forwarded a document to her line manager for review. In a subsequent message dated 1st July 2024, the line manager invited her to his oce so that they could review the errors together. 76. The Claimant maintained that she and her line manager had been working together on the data through a shared le and that she had made every eort to complete the task. She explained that she had experienced delays in obtaining the requisite data from the “WFM” team because complete data was not readily available. According to the Claimant, the nal dataset was received on 1st July 2024, after which she updated it accordingly. 77. Regarding the meeting with the newly appointed Head of Operations, Maria, the Claimant stated that both of them were in agreement that the session had been rescheduled and that her line manager had been copied in the communication. In support of this assertion, she produced a screenshot of a message dated 3rd July 2024 from Esther Kamau conrming that the meeting had been rescheduled due to another presentation and client visits, and that both she and Maria were aligned on the revised arrangement. 78. With regard to the allegation that she failed to share the links with the Talent & Culture team to pilot the behavioural assessment process, the Claimant explained in her response to the Notice to Show Cause that the instruction communicated to her on 21st June 2024 through WhatsApp was unclear. She stated that she immediately sought clarication from her line manager, but he merely read the message without responding. That since 22nd and 23rd June 2024 fell on a weekend, she sought https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2606/eng@2026-07-31 8

page 8 of 13

clarication in person on Monday, 24th June 2024, following which she commenced the task and subsequently shared the requisite links with the Talent & Culture team. 79. In support of her position, the Claimant produced a screenshot of the WhatsApp exchange in which her line manager instructed her to “Also, please create the behaviour for the rest of team (sic).” 80. The screenshot further shows that the Claimant requested her line manager to expound the instruction, but he did not respond. 81. This lends credence to the Claimant's assertion that she sought clarication and that the instruction was only explained to her when they met with her line manager in person on 24th June 2024. It is also notable that the Respondent did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the Claimant had been instructed to share the links prior to the WhatsApp message of 21st June 2024. 82. The Claimant further disputed the allegation that she failed to share the behavioural assessment status report. She maintained that she forwarded the report to her line manager on 25th June 2024. In support of this contention, she attached to her appeal a copy of an email dated 25th June 2024 through which she transmitted the behavioural assessment report to her manager. This discounts the assertion made by her line manager in his email of 26th June 2024 to Dickson Adeya that the report had not been shared. 83. Revisiting the denition of the term insubordination and applying it to the facts of this case, the Court is not persuaded that the Respondent has proved the allegation against the Claimant. I say so for the reason that insubordination entails more than mere poor performance or delays in the execution of assigned tasks. Rather, it entails a wilful, deliberate or intentional refusal by an employee to obey a lawful and proper instruction issued by a supervisor. 84. Although the evidence on record may suggest that the Claimant experienced challenges in completing some of her assigned tasks, it does not demonstrate that she deliberately disregarded or ignored her supervisor's instructions. 85. On the contrary, the evidence shows that she remained engaged with her line manager, sought clarication and assistance where necessary, met with both her manager and Daisy, as directed, attended meetings and forwarded documents to her manager for review. Such conduct is inconsistent with an employee who has deliberately chosen to defy managerial authority. 86. The Court further notes that the instruction issued to the Claimant by her line manager on 21st June 2024 through WhatsApp was unclear and capable of more than one interpretation. As per the record, the Claimant immediately sought clarication, but her manager did not respond to her request. It was only after they met in person on 24th June 2024 that the instruction was claried, following which the Claimant proceeded to undertake the assigned task. To this end, it would be unjustied to characterise her conduct as deliberate disobedience when she had rst sought clarication before acting. 87. The evidence on record further shows that the Claimant transmitted the behavioural assessment status report to her line manager on 25th June 2024, contrary to the allegation that she had failed to do so. This evidence discounts the Respondent's assertion that the Claimant failed to share the status report and that it was her manager who ultimately did so himself. 88. Equally, the allegation that the Claimant misrepresented the rescheduling of the meeting with the newly appointed Head of Operations, Maria, does not, in the Court's view, amount to insubordination. In any event, the screenshot of the communication from Esther Kamau corroborates the Claimant's explanation that the meeting had been rescheduled by mutual agreement. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2606/eng@2026-07-31 9

page 9 of 13

89. Viewed in its totality, the evidence on record does not establish that the Claimant wilfully and deliberately refused to comply with the lawful instructions/command of her supervisor. Rather, it points to communication gaps, delays in execution and dierences regarding the manner in which the assigned tasks were undertaken. Consequently, the Court nds that the Respondent has failed to prove the allegation of insubordination on a balance of probabilities. 90. The second ground upon which the Respondent terminated the Claimant's employment was negligence of duty. Specically, it was alleged that the Claimant submitted incomplete raw performance data that lacked the requisite targets and weightage, thereby compelling her line manager to handle the task himself. 91. In challenging this allegation, the Claimant relied on the evidence she tendered in support of her appeal against the termination. To this end, she annexed screenshots of messages exchanged with Levis Shitsama on 13th June 2024, which showed that she had requested the requisite data from him. In response, Levis informed her that he was experiencing diculties obtaining the data required by the Claimant's line manager. 92. The Claimant further produced a screenshot of an email dated 1st July 2024 from her line manager to Levis seeking guidance on where the targets and weightage could be obtained. In his response, Levis stated as follows: “ After a quick review, it appears that ranking the TLs based on the requested KPIs will be very challenging. The KPI targets frequently uctuate due to OPS/client requests for changes and requirements which can occur daily, weekly, or monthly. This variability may result in inaccurate data for ranking purposes. Considering that the data shared has no targets and weightage, I suggest that you kindly have a conversation with OPS team to determine how we can proceed with this, as the targets are managed by them.” 93. The applicable statutory provision on this issue is Section 44(4)(c) of the Employment Act, which provides as follows: [44] (4) Any of the following matters may amount to gross misconduct so as to justify the summary dismissal of an employee for lawful cause… ……………………………… (c) an employer will be justied for dismissal if an employee willfully neglects to perform any work which it was his duty to perform, or if he carelessly and improperly performs any work which from its nature it was his duty, under his contract, to have performed carefully and properly; 94. In essence, Section 44(4)(c) of the Employment Act permits an employer to summarily dismiss an employee whose negligent, careless or improper performance of his or her duties results in, or is likely to result in, loss, injury or damage to the employer or the employer's property. 95. Applying the foregoing statutory provision to the facts of this case, the Court is not persuaded that the Respondent has proved the allegation of negligence of duty against the Claimant on a balance https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2606/eng@2026-07-31 10

page 10 of 13

of probabilities. Here is why. From the record, the Claimant requested the requisite data from Levis on 13th June 2024. Levis, in turn, conrmed that he was experiencing diculties obtaining the information required to complete the exercise. 96. The email dated 1st July 2024 further shows that the Claimant's line manager himself sought guidance from Levis on where the targets and weightage could be obtained. In his response, Levis outlined the practical challenges that impeded completion of the task, including the absence of the requisite targets and weightage and the need to engage the Operations team. Notably, none of these challenges was attributable to the Claimant. Rather, they point to operational constraints beyond her control. 97. In light of the foregoing, the Court is unable to conclude that the Claimant's failure to process the data as expected resulted from carelessness or neglect of duty on her part. 98. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that the shortcomings arose from operational diculties in accessing the requisite information. 99. Accordingly, the Court nds that the Respondent has failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Claimant was negligent in the performance of her duties as to warrant her termination from employment. 100. All things considered, the Court is not persuaded that the Respondent has established, on a balance of probabilities, that it had a justiable reason for terminating the Claimant’s employment on the grounds of insubordination and negligence of duty. Fair Procedure? 101. The Employment Act requires an employer to demonstrate that, before terminating an employee from its employment, the employee was subjected to a fair process. This overarching requirement is embodied in Section 45(2)(c) of the Act. 102. The procedural safeguards attendant to termination are set out under Section 41 of the Employment Act. Under that provision, an employer is required to inform the employee of the specic allegations forming the basis of the contemplated termination, aord the employee an opportunity to respond to those allegations, and permit the employee to be accompanied by a fellow employee or a union representative of his or her choice during the disciplinary hearing. 103. In the present case, the record bears that the Claimant was issued with a Notice to Show Cause dated 3rd July 2024 requiring her to respond to the allegations on or before “Tuesday, 2nd July 2024.” It is apparent that the stipulated deadline was erroneous, as it preceded the date of the notice itself. Indeed, the Respondent has acknowledged this error in its pleadings. Consequently, the timeframe within which the Claimant was expected to submit her response was uncertain. 104. The record further shows that, in her response to the Notice to Show Cause, the Claimant expressly highlighted the anomaly regarding the response deadline and expressed concern that the disciplinary process appeared to presume her guilt. 105. It is also evident that by an email dated 5th July 2024, the Claimant was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing scheduled for 8th July 2024. The Claimant contends that the intervening period fell over a weekend, thereby aording her insucient time to prepare for the hearing. 106. The Court notes that, indeed, the 6th and 7th July 2024 fell on a weekend. Eectively, the Claimant was aorded only two (2) intervening days, both of which fell over the weekend, to prepare her defence https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2606/eng@2026-07-31 11

page 11 of 13

before the disciplinary hearing. The adequacy of that notice must therefore be assessed against the requirements of procedural fairness under the Employment Act. 107. In determining whether the notice issued to the Claimant to attend the disciplinary hearing was adequate, the Court is guided by the decision in the case of Nebert Mandala Ombajo v Institute of Certied Public Accountants of Kenya (ICPAK), Nakuru Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2018, in which the Court of Appeal emphasized that disciplinary proceedings are a grave matter for an employee, given their potentially severe consequences. The appellate Court held that where serious allegations are involved, an employee must be given sucient time to prepare mentally and, if necessary, to seek advice or representation. 108. In the instant case, the Court nds that the two (2) days aorded to the Claimant to prepare for and attend the disciplinary hearing were inadequate and it is more than probable that her ability to prepare and present an eective defence at the disciplinary hearing was impaired. 109. The Court further concurs with the reasoning in Nebert Mandala Ombajo v Institute of Certied Public Accountants of Kenya (ICPAK), (supra) that the fact that the employee nonetheless responded to the allegations and attended the disciplinary hearing does not remedy the prejudice caused by the inadequate notice. 110. Similarly in the present case, the mere fact that the Claimant attended the disciplinary hearing and did not seek an adjournment or additional time does not cure the prejudice occasioned by the inadequate notice. The obligation to ensure procedural fairness rested squarely with the Respondent, and that obligation included aording the Claimant sucient time to prepare and eectively present her defence. 111. In the premises, the Court nds that the Respondent failed to accord the Claimant procedural fairness as required under Section 41 of the Employment Act by failing to provide her with adequate notice and sucient time to prepare for the disciplinary hearing. Reliefs? 112. Having found that the Respondent neither demonstrated a justiable reason for terminating the Claimant’s employment nor aorded her procedural fairness in doing so, the Court awards the Claimant compensation equivalent to four (4) months’ salary. In determining this award, the Court has taken into account the duration of the employment relationship which was close to two (2) years and the circumstances attendant to the termination of the Claimant’s employment. 113. The Claimant's claim for house allowance is declined, as her contract of employment expressly provided that her remuneration was consolidated and payable as a gross salary. 114. The Black’s Law Dictionary (10th Edition p. 880) denes gross income as the “Total income from all sources before deductions, exemptions, or other tax reductions…Also termed as gross earnings.” 115. A clear construction of the foregoing denition demonstrates that the term “gross” refers to the total remuneration payable to an employee before any statutory or other deductions are made. In the absence of a contrary contractual provision, such remuneration ordinarily encompasses all components of an employee's pay, including applicable allowances. This position nds support in Samson Omechi Ongera v Tusker Mattresses Limited [2018] eKLR, where the Court held that: “Gross monthly pay comprises of basic pay together with house allowance but does not include other work dependent on allowances such as bonus or car allowance and overtime.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2606/eng@2026-07-31 12

page 12 of 13

116. The Court reaches the same conclusion in the present case. Having found that the Claimant's remuneration was expressly stated to be a consolidated gross salary, it follows that the same was inclusive of house allowance. Accordingly, the Claimant's claim for house allowance fails. Orders 117. In the nal analysis, the Court enters Judgment in favour of the Claimant against the Respondent in the following manner: a. A declaration that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was unfair and unlawful. b. The Claimant is awarded compensation in the sum of Kshs 2,000,000/-, equivalent to four (4) months’ gross salary. c. Interest shall accrue on the award in (b) above at the applicable court rates from the date of judgment until full payment is made. d. The Claimant is awarded the costs of the suit. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYERI THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY 2026. ……………………………… STELLA RUTTO JUDGE In the presence of: For the Claimant Mr. Keiro For the Respondent Ms. Korir Court Assistant Ndati ORDER In view of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court had been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and aordable resolution of civil disputes. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2606/eng@2026-07-31 13

page 13 of 13