Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedFirst Appeal from ELRC at Nairobi (Mbaru J.)

Kenya Revenue Authority v Mwongela (Civil Appeal E268 of 2022) [2025] KECA 262 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
21 February 2025
SKS. Gatembu KairuPNP. NyamweyaLAL. Achode
4,740 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed a KRA dismissal was procedurally unfair despite valid reasons, but cut the employee's payout to twelve months' salary and cancelled reinstatement.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal by the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) against the judgment of Mbaru J. of the Employment and Labour Relations Court delivered on 31st March 2022, which declared the respondent's dismissal unlawful, ordered his reinstatement with back salaries from 8th February 2016, and awarded costs. KRA had suspended the respondent, a customs officer, in 2016 over allegations of approving fake customs bonds and receiving money, and terminated him in 2019 after he failed to attend a disciplinary hearing. The Court of Appeal distilled three issues: whether the termination was unfair, whether reinstatement was proper, and whether compensation was excessive. It accepted the employer's reasons as valid but found the procedure unfair because the second show-cause letter was sent to the wrong postal address and returned undelivered. It held that reinstatement is a rarity to be granted only in exceptional circumstances which the trial judge failed to identify, particularly where trust had irretrievably broken down. It further found the award of six years' back salaries excessive, the statutory cap being twelve months' gross salary under section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act. The appeal partially succeeded: the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside and substituted with a declaration of unfair termination, compensation of twelve months' gross salary payable within 90 days, and each party bearing its own costs. The judgment binds subordinate courts and the ELRC on the reinstatement and compensation standards.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the termination of the respondent's employment by the appellant was unfair and unlawful
  2. 2.Whether the learned judge erred in reinstating the Respondent
  3. 3.Whether the compensation awarded was excessive

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination was unfair and unlawful

Holding

The reasons for termination were valid and related to the employee's conduct, but the procedure was unfair because the show-cause letter and hearing invitation were sent to the wrong address and were returned undelivered, so the termination was unfair on procedural grounds.

Reasoning

Under section 45 of the Employment Act, fairness has two limbs: valid reason and fair procedure. The employer's reasons (approval of fake customs bonds and receipt of money) were accepted as valid. However, the March 2019 show-cause letter was posted to the wrong postal address and returned undelivered, and the respondent did not attend the disciplinary hearing; the court found procedural lapses rendering the dismissal unfair.

p. 7
02

Whether reinstatement was properly ordered

Holding

The trial judge erred in reinstating the respondent without indicating exceptional circumstances; trust had broken down and alternative remedies should have been considered.

Reasoning

Relying on Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd v Aggrey Lukorito Wasike, the court held that reinstatement amounts to specific performance of a personal services contract and should be a rarity ordered only in exceptional circumstances which the judge must set out. The trial judge gave no such reasons, and the appellant genuinely believed trust had irretrievably broken down, making reinstatement inappropriate.

p. 8
03

Whether the compensation awarded was excessive

Holding

Yes; the award of six years' back salaries was excessive and substituted with twelve months' gross salary as at the time of dismissal.

Reasoning

Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act caps compensation at twelve months' gross salary, and section 50 obliges courts to apply the section 49(4) factors judicially. Following The German School Society and G4S Security Services, where 24 months was reduced to 12 months, the court found six years' salary for work not done excessive and unjustified.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • Termination is unfair where the employer fails to prove both a valid and fair reason and a fair procedure; a valid reason does not cure procedural unfairness.
  • Reinstatement is not an automatic remedy but a rarity to be ordered only in exceptional circumstances, which a judge must expressly identify.
  • Compensation for unfair termination is capped at twelve months' gross salary under section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the Respondent's employment was terminated unlawfully and unfairly.
  2. 2.Payment of equivalent of twelve months' salary based on the gross monthly salary of the respondent at the time of dismissal within 90 days if such salaries have not been paid.
  3. 3.Parties shall bear their own costs.

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

SK
majority
PN
majority
LA
majority
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Employment and Labour Relations Court (impliedly under the Court of Appeal's statutory appellate jurisdiction; no specific provision quoted in the judgment)

Relief refused

#

Order for reinstatement of the Respondent

Reinstatement is not automatic and requires exceptional circumstances; trust between the parties had irretrievably broken down and the trial judge did not identify exceptional circumstances

p. 8

Award of back salaries from 8th February 2016 to the date of judgment

An award of six years' salary for work not done was excessive; the statutory cap under section 49(1)(c) limits compensation to twelve months' gross salary

p. 10

Costs

Parties shall bear their own costs.

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.

A declaration that the Respondent's employment was terminated unlawfully and unfairly.
p. 10Final orders - declaration
Payment of equivalent of twelve months' salary based on the gross monthly salary of the respondent at the time of dismissal within 90 days if such salaries have not been paid.
p. 10Final orders - substituted compensation
Parties shall bear their own costs.
p. 10Final orders - costs
Reinstatement of an employee is not an automatic remedy in wrongful dismissal cases. It is a rarity to be ordered in exceptional circumstances rather than a common place pronouncement.
p. 8Reinstatement standard
even if the employer proves the reason(s) for dismissal to be valid and fair and that there was misconduct, failure to prove that the procedure was fair would result in an unfair dismissal.
p. 6Two-limb test for fair termination

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Inconsistent dates for the second show-cause letter within the same judgment

minor

Inconsistent dates for the disciplinary hearing invitation

minor

The record omits the appellate case number of this appeal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (5)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Revenue Authority v Mwongela (Civil Appeal E268 of 2022) [2025] KECA 262 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). First Appeal from ELRC at Nairobi (Mbaru J.). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/262/eng@2025-02-21

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