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 AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. E023 of 2024· [2026] KECA 1789 (KLR)

Andrew Opiyo Ochwang'u v Leafde Ltd

Court of Appeal
25 September 2026
3,458 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that an employee fired for proven fraud cannot claim extra compensation when the employer's evidence justifies the dismissal, even if procedure was flawed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant, formerly Head of Finance and Accounting at Leafde Ltd, was summarily dismissed in October 2021 following a forensic audit that found he had orchestrated fraud and misappropriation of company funds, including unsupported withdrawals exceeding Kshs. 7.9 million and unexplained transfers of Kshs. 3 million. The ELRC (Mbaru, J.) found the dismissal substantively justified but procedurally unfair because the appellant was not accorded a hearing; it nonetheless declined compensation, awarding only 13 days' leave pay and ordering each party to bear its own costs. The appellant appealed solely against the refusal of compensation, contending there was no proof he had been criminally charged. The Court of Appeal (Murgor, Laibuta & Ngenye-Macharia, JJ.A.) dismissed the appeal. It held that the standard of proof for gross misconduct is the balance of probabilities, not the criminal standard, and that the unrebutted audit findings discharged the employer's burden under section 47(5) of the Employment Act. While the admitted failure to accord a hearing rendered the dismissal procedurally defective, the Court applied its decision in Oyombe v Eco Bank, holding that where substantive justification is cogently established, a procedural breach attracts at best limited or nominal compensation. Since the appellant had already received two months' salary in lieu of notice, further compensation would overcompensate him. The ELRC judgment was upheld with costs of the appeal to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the trial Judge erred in declining compensation for unfair termination despite finding procedural unfairness

Holding

The appeal fails; the Judge properly exercised discretion under section 45(5)(b) of the Employment Act, having regard to the appellant's gross misconduct, and the decision declining compensation stands.

Reasoning

The forensic audit findings of fraud and misappropriation were unrebutted, establishing substantive justification for summary dismissal. The procedural defect (failure to accord a hearing under section 41) was admitted but, given the appellant's serious misconduct and the two months' salary already paid in lieu of notice, any further award would overcompensate him. The Court affirmed the ELRC's discretionary balancing under section 45(5)(b).

p. 27
02

Whether the respondent discharged the burden of justifying the termination absent a criminal conviction

Holding

Yes; the burden under section 47(5) rests on the employer to justify grounds, on a balance of probabilities, and the audit evidence sufficed without proof of a criminal charge.

Reasoning

Section 47(5) places the burden of justifying grounds for termination on the employer. The standard is the balance of probabilities, not the criminal standard. The Forensic Investigative Audit Report, produced and testified to by RW2, made unrebutted findings of systematic fraud by the appellant, so the respondent discharged its burden regardless of whether a criminal charge was proved to exist.

p. 24

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an employer establishes substantive justification for summary dismissal through cogent and unrebutted evidence, a procedural breach can attract only limited or nominal compensation.
  • The standard of proof for gross misconduct in employment is the balance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed in its entirety with costs to the respondent
  2. 2.The judgment of the ELRC (Monica Mbaru, J.) delivered on 29th June 2023 is upheld
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
ELRC Case No. E072 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the Employment and Labour Relations Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Andrew Opiyo Ochwang'u v Leafde Ltd", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal No. E023 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1789/eng@2026-09-25

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