Mfundi v Micro and Small Enterprises Authority (Cause E507 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1507 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a KShs. 33 million unfair termination claim, ruling the employer acted fairly after discovering falsified academic credentials.
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 Claimant's contract was terminated on valid grounds
- 2.Whether termination was fairly executed
- 3.Whether the Claimant merits the remedies sought
- 4.Whether the Respondent's application dated 16th November 2023 to introduce fresh documents should be allowed
Key legal issues
#Validity of grounds for termination
Valid grounds existed under Sections 43 and 44(4)(g) Employment Act and the HR Manual
The certificates were fake (confirmed by University of Nairobi and EACC). Though the claimant denied presenting them, he self-declared under oath holding a Bachelor's Degree, inconsistent with his application and CV, giving the employer genuine reason to suspect misrepresentation. Section 43 requires only a genuine belief in the reasons at termination, not conclusion of EACC or criminal investigations.
Procedural fairness of termination
Procedure was fair
The claimant was issued a letter to show cause, replied, and was heard by the Human Resource Committee before dismissal. Disciplinary action conformed with clause 10.23 of the HR Manual, which expands gross misconduct under Section 44(4) to cover false statements and dishonesty.
Remedies
No remedies granted; the claim was declined
The claimant worked barely a month and rendered no public service of note before dismissal. His claim of Kshs. 33.1 million was a cash-grab mentality deplored in unfair termination claims. Terminal dues had been paid, and compensation was unjustified.
Late application to introduce fresh documents
Dismissed as an abuse of process
The application was filed after both parties had given evidence, hearing closed, submissions made, and a judgment date sought. It was an abuse of the court's process.
Legal principles established
#- Under Section 43 of the Employment Act an employer need only show a genuine belief in the reasons for termination at the time of termination
- Institutions offering diploma courses cannot determine that their diplomas are equivalent to or higher than university degrees
Court orders
#- 1.The application filed by the Respondent dated 16th November 2023 dismissed, with no order on the costs
- 2.Delivery of Judgment to proceed on notice as intended before the filing of the Respondent's belated application
- 3.The Claim is declined
- 4.Costs to the Respondent
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 (first-instance employment claim)
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination was unfair and unlawful; terminal dues of Kshs. 33,119,795; defamation and exemplary damages
The Claimant was dismissed on valid grounds and fairly; the claim was a cash-grab
Respondent's application dated 16th November 2023 to introduce fresh documents
Abuse of process, filed after close of proceedings
Costs
Costs to the Respondent; the application dated 16th November 2023 was dismissed with no order on 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.
It is ordered that: [a] the application filed by the Respondent dated 16th November 2023, is dismissed, with no order on the costs; and [b] delivery of Judgment to proceed on notice, as was intended before the filing of the Respondent’s belated application.
IT IS ORDERED: a. The Claim is declined. b. Costs to the Respondent.
The Court is satisfied that the Respondent had valid grounds, to terminate the Claimant’s contract, under Sections 43 and 44[4][g] of the Employment Act.
The standard of proof does not therefore call for investigations and conclusion of matters by the EACC, The Director of Public Prosecution or the Courts.
It is not for institutions ofiering Diploma Courses, in London or Nairobi, to determine that their Diploma Certificates, are equivalent of, or higher than Degree Certificates, issued by our Universities.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment chronology inconsistencies: pleadings state hearings December 2019/January 2020 and termination 24th January 2020, while evidence recorded termination 'around February 2020'
Case number not stated in the judgment text provided
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mfundi v Micro and Small Enterprises Authority (Cause E507 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1507 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1507/eng@2024-06-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.