Selecta Kenya GMBH & Co KG v Gurevich (Civil Appeal E713 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1600 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld a €88,992 award against Selecta Kenya because the company fired its general manager without reasons or a hearing.
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 summary dismissal of the respondent was unlawful, unprocedural, and unjustified.
- 2.If so, what reliefs is the respondent entitled to?
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness in termination of employment under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
The dismissal of 27th March 2020 was unprocedural because the termination letter contained no reasons and no hearing was accorded to the respondent before termination.
The Court applied sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act as a mandatory process, adopting the parameters in Janet Nyandiko v Kenya Commercial Bank. DW1 did not outline any of the required procedures as having been undertaken. The trial court's finding that the letter was silent on reasons and that no hearing occurred was affirmed. The June 2020 show-cause letter could not cure the defect since it was issued after services had already been terminated.
Interference with discretionary monetary awards on appeal
The awards of €88,992 for notice pay, compensation, leave and bonus, plus Kshs 750,000 house allowance, were upheld as lawful exercises of discretion under section 49 of the Employment Act.
The six months' notice pay originated from the appellant's own letter of 22nd March 2020, and the respondent was paid only two months. The house allowance award followed evidence that the appellant stopped paying rent by its letter of 15th June 2020. The section 49(4) factors were properly considered: three years of high performance, no misconduct causing dismissal, and no subsequent employment.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must, before terminating employment on grounds of misconduct, poor performance or physical incapacity, explain the reasons to the employee in a language the employee understands, in the presence of a fellow employee or shop floor union representative of the employee's choice, and hear and consider any representations.
- A termination is unfair where the employer fails to prove a valid and fair reason related to the employee's conduct, capacity or compatibility, or fails to act in accordance with justice and equity; a show-cause letter issued after termination is an afterthought and cannot cure procedural unfairness.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the appeal
- 2.The appellant to pay the respondent the costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Employment and Labour Relations Court (the judgment does not cite a specific constitutional or statutory provision)
Relief refused
#The appellant's challenge to the monetary awards (notice pay, compensation, leave, bonus and house allowance)
The Court found the trial judge exercised discretion within the boundaries prescribed by law and saw no basis for interference.
Costs
The appellant shall pay the respondent the costs of the appeal.
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.
We therefore find no basis for interfering with the Judge’s finding that the procedure employed by the appellant to terminate the respondent’s employment was unprocedural.
we find no basis for interfering with the discretionary monetary reliefs awarded by the trial court and uphold the same as the trial judge exercised discretion within the boundaries prescribed by the law
The result is that we dismiss the appeal. The appellant shall pay the respondent the costs of the appeal. Orders accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the respondent was employed by contract dated 15th September 2016, but also records the trial court's finding that the claimant 'worked for 3 years' at dismissal in 2020, which is consistent; however, the opening paragraph dates the trial decision as 29th October 2021 while describing a dismissal letter of 27th March 2002, which appears to be a typographical error for 2020.
The delivery date of the judgment is stated as 31st July 2026, which post-dates the appellate submissions of 2023 and appears anomalous in the certified copy.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Selecta Kenya GMBH & Co KG v Gurevich (Civil Appeal E713 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1600 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1600/eng@2026-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.