Onsongo v Securex Agencies (K) Limited (Cause E691 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 83 (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 termination of the Claimant's employment was procedurally fair
- 2.Whether the Respondent had valid and fair reasons to justify termination (substantive fairness)
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to remedies, including compensation for unfair termination
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of termination
Procedural fairness was satisfied - show cause letter, reply, disciplinary hearing with trade union representation, and communication of decision complied with Section 41
The Claimant conceded he was issued a letter to show cause, replied, was invited to a disciplinary hearing, and was heard in the presence of a shop floor trade union representative. The decision to terminate was communicated with reasons. The Court held this conformed to the minimum statutory standards of fairness under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Substantive justification for termination
No valid reasons established; the generalized allegations of insubordination, negligence and poor relations were not fleshed out or validated
The Respondent did not adduce evidence, so the Claimant's denial of the allegations stood unchallenged. The three grounds in the termination letter were generalized and never validated through investigation or evidence, failing the minimum statutory standards of substantive justification under Sections 43 and 47(5) of the Employment Act.
Quantum of compensation
Compensation awarded at 2½ months' salary (Kshs. 262,500) rather than 12 months sought
The Claimant worked only 2 years and 5 months, was paid terminal benefits, gave no evidence on how long he expected to work or whether he obtained alternative employment, and there was no evidence he contributed to the termination. These factors militated against the maximum 12 months' compensation sought.
Legal principles established
#- Procedural fairness under Section 41 does not substitute for substantive justification under Sections 43 and 47(5) of the Employment Act
- Generalized, unvalidated allegations against an employee cannot constitute valid reasons for termination
- Evidence unchallenged on ex parte hearing is taken as uncontested
Court orders
#- 1.It is declared that termination was unfair
- 2.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant compensation for unfair termination, equivalent of 2½ months' salary at Kshs. 262,500
- 3.Costs to the Claimant
- 4.Interest allowed at court rate, from the date of Judgment till payment is made in full
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment Act, Sections 41, 43, 45 and 47(5)
Relief refused
#Compensation for unfair termination equivalent of 12 months' salary at Kshs. 1,260,000
Award limited to 2½ months' salary given short service of 2 years 5 months, payment of terminal benefits, and lack of evidence on expectations and mitigation
Costs
Costs to the Claimant
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.
It is declared that termination was unfair.
The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant compensation for unfair termination, equivalent of 2½ months' salary at Kshs. 262,500.
Termination was procedurally fair, but unfair on account of substantive justification.
The allegations were not fieshed out. They remained as worthless as a glass hammer.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onsongo v Securex Agencies (K) Limited (Cause E691 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 83 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/83/eng@2024-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.