Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KECA 1600 (KLR)

Selecta Kenya Gmbh & Co Kg v Yaron Gurevich

Court of Appeal of Kenya
31 July 2026
3,055 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

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

#
This was a first appeal to the Court of Appeal at Nairobi against the decision of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Makau, J.) dated 29th October 2021, which found the respondent's dismissal unfair and unlawful under section 45 of the Employment Act and awarded him €88,992 for notice pay, compensation, leave and bonus, plus Kshs 750,000 house allowance. The respondent, employed as general manager under a contract dated 15th September 2016, was served with a termination letter on 27th March 2020 effective 30th September 2020, containing no reasons, and was later summarily dismissed in June 2020 for alleged gross misconduct. The appellant raised six grounds, contending principally that the trial court ignored its evidence, wrongly held it liable under a contract with Selecta Klemm GmbH & Co. KG, and erred in the house allowance award despite proof of payment until September 2020. Counsel for the appellant conceded a lapse in procedure for failure to accord the respondent a hearing. The Court, applying its first-appellate mandate and the parameters in Janet Nyandiko v Kenya Commercial Bank, held that the termination letter was silent on reasons, no hearing was held, and the June 2020 show-cause letter was an afterthought issued after termination. It found no basis for interfering with the procedural findings or the discretionary monetary awards, dismissed the appeal, and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Procedural fairness in termination of employment under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act

Holding

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.

Reasoning

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.

p. 6
02

Interference with discretionary monetary awards on appeal

Holding

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.

Reasoning

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.

p. 6

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. 1.Dismissal of the appeal
  2. 2.The appellant to pay the respondent the costs of the appeal
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)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Selecta Kenya Gmbh & Co Kg v Yaron Gurevich", 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.