Eliud Nyaenga Gwaro v Kenya Revenue Authority [2021] KEELRC 1413 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was unfair termination of employment
- 2.Whether there is a case of discrimination against the claimant
- 3.Whether the remedies sought should be granted
- 4.Who should pay costs
Key legal issues
#Whether termination of the claimant's employment was with valid reasons under section 43 of the Employment Act
Yes - valid grounds existed; investigation established the vehicles did not exit the country and the claimant failed to give satisfactory responses
The investigating officer's evidence established that 15 transit vehicles allegedly exited to Uganda never exited; the electronic cargo tracking system showed signals ending at Mombasa and Nakuru, and URA confirmed goods never entered Uganda. The claimant, whose duty was to verify goods and process exit, failed to give satisfactory answers. Following CFC Stanbic Bank v Mwakuwon, reasonable grounds to suspect gross misconduct constitute genuine grounds for termination.
Whether the termination procedure was fair under section 41 of the Employment Act
Yes - the claimant received a show cause notice, documents, written and oral hearing, and further time to produce evidence
The claimant was issued with a show cause notice, supplied with the investigations report and annexures on request, invited to a disciplinary hearing with rights outlined, given an oral hearing, and granted more time to submit supporting documents which he failed to produce. Section 41 requires notification, invitation to hearing and provision of evidence; these were satisfied.
Whether the claimant was discriminated against
No - the claim was merely pleaded without any supporting evidence
The claimant alleged discrimination but tendered no evidence in support. Mere pleading without proof cannot sustain a finding of discrimination, and damages founded on that allegation therefore could not issue.
Legal principles established
#- An employee may be dismissed summarily for wilful neglect or careless performance of work which it was his duty to perform carefully and properly
- Reasonable grounds and sufficient reasons to suspect gross misconduct detrimental to the employer constitute genuine grounds for termination of employment
Court orders
#- 1.The claims made are found without merit and are dismissed
- 2.The claimant shall pay the respondent 50% of its costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007; Employment and Labour Relations Court Act)
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination was unfair and unlawful
Termination was found justified with valid reasons and fair procedure
Reinstatement to work
Termination of employment was found justified
Damages for unlawful termination / compensation for time lost
No case of discrimination was proved; there was no evidence of discrimination
Costs
The claimant shall pay the respondent 50% of its 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.
Accordingly, the claims made are found without merit and are hereby dismissed. the claimant shall pay the respondent 50% of its costs.
Section 41 of the Act requires such notification, invitation for hearing and provisions of evidence as required. There was procedural fairness in this case and termination of employment was justified.
where there were reasonable grounds and sufficient reasons to suspect that the employee had committed gross misconduct in his employment and had done acts which were substantially detrimental to the employer, such constituted genuine grounds for termination of employment
On the remedies sought, termination of employment found justified, reinstatement cannot issue.
Issues in the judgment
#Dates of the claimant's written response are inconsistent - the show cause response is described as both 7th March 2018 and 15th March 2018
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Eliud Nyaenga Gwaro v Kenya Revenue Authority [2021] KEELRC 1413 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No. 323 of 2020 [E289/2020]. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1413/eng@2021-03-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.