Kariuki v Nakuru Water & Sanitation Co Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E021 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1138 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld the dismissal of an administration officer who approved fuel for grounded vehicles, ruling the employer followed fair procedure.
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 termination of the claimant's services was valid both procedurally and substantively
- 2.Whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Whether there were valid and fair reasons for the claimant's summary dismissal
The court found valid reasons existed - the claimant approved fuel for vehicles not in use and failed to monitor consumption
The court found the claimant was the officer approving fuel use and checking mileage, so he knew or ought to have known which vehicles were in use. Vehicles in the garage and out-of-use machines were approved for fuel. Either he failed to check or fraudulently approved fuel for vehicles not in use, making him culpable and justifying dismissal.
Whether the termination procedure was fair and lawful
Due process was followed - show cause letter, suspension, response considered, disciplinary hearing with representation, dismissal and appeal
The claimant was issued a show cause letter dated 27th January 2021, responded, was invited to a disciplinary hearing on 19th April 2021 with all evidence supplied, was accompanied by a representative of his choice, and was granted an appeal which the Board considered and dismissed. Minutes were produced in court. The court held the respondent followed due process.
Legal principles established
#- An employer need only establish valid reasons for termination on a genuine belief / reasonable basis standard, not conclusive proof
- Compliance with a disciplinary procedure (show cause, hearing, appeal) constitutes due process under the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the claimant's case in its entirety
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (unfair termination claim under sections 43, 44, 45 and 49)
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination was unlawful and unjustified
Court found valid reasons for dismissal and due process was followed
One month pay in lieu of notice (Kshs. 90,506)
Claim dismissed
Basic pay for days worked (Kshs. 45,253)
Claim dismissed
House allowance (Kshs. 32,860)
Claim dismissed
Pro-rata leave pay (Kshs. 114,973) and leave travelling allowance
Claim dismissed
Terminal dues for unfinished term of employment till retirement (Kshs. 6,516,432)
Claim dismissed
Compensation under section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act (Kshs. 1,086,072)
Claim dismissed
Costs
The judgment does not record an express costs order; the Respondent had prayed for dismissal with costs but the court's final orders only record dismissal of the claim.
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.
This indicates that either he didn't check them or he ignored the obvious that the vehicles were not in use and therefore fraudulently approved fuel for vehicles not in use and was therefore culpable. This leads to my conclusion that there were valid reasons to warrant his dismissal.
It is my finding that the respondents followed due process in prosecuting the claimant displinary case and found him guilty of the charges levelled against him. In the circumstances, I find that the claimants case has no merit and must therefore fail. I therefore dismiss the claimants' case accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not record the case number or neutral citation of this suit, and the parties are not named in full in the judgment text (the claimant's name appears only indirectly via a lower court case reference, 'Martin Muchai Karuka').
Costs: the Respondent prayed for costs but the judgment's closing orders make no express costs award.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kariuki v Nakuru Water & Sanitation Co Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E021 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1138 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1138/eng@2024-05-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.