Njoroge v Kenya Railways Corporation & another (Cause E719 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1927 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employee's dismissal unfair because she was denied her chosen companion at a disciplinary hearing, awarding six months' salary.
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 was demoted when offered the position of Procurement Manager at Railway Grade 3 by the letter dated 27.02.2018
- 2.Whether the procedure adopted in the disciplinary process leading to termination was fair
- 3.Whether the termination was substantively justified under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007
- 4.What remedies, if any, flow from the unfair termination, including compensation, certificate of service and severance
Key legal issues
#Demotion
No demotion; the claimant voluntarily signed the 5-year contract placing her at RG-3.
The court found the claimant's terms were translated into a five-year contract by the letter dated 27.02.2018 and she accepted on 04.05.2018. Having voluntarily signed the contract, she was bound by it, and continued performing Head of Procurement duties at RG-3, so claims premised on the higher RG2 grade collapsed.
Fairness of disciplinary process
The procedure was unfair; termination unfair in procedure and substance.
Clause 11.4.1 of the staff manual entitled the claimant to attend the hearing with an expert of her own choice. The respondent instead imposed attendance with a co-employee, her request for more time was denied, she could not attend the hearing, and her appeal was declined. Without a hearing, termination could not satisfy sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Compensation
Six months' gross salary awarded at Kshs.295,946.00, totaling Kshs.1,775,676.00 less PAYE.
In exercising discretion under the Employment Act, the court considered the claimant's contribution to the unfair termination by failing to attend the board hearing where she could have voiced her objections, and also considered the unexpired tenure of the five-year fixed-term contract.
Legal principles established
#- A voluntarily signed fixed-term contract binds the parties and negates a claim of demotion where the employee accepted the translated terms.
- Where an employee is denied the right to attend a disciplinary hearing with an expert of her own choice as provided in the staff manual, and the hearing does not proceed, the termination is unfair both in procedure and substance.
Court orders
#- 1.Payment of Kshs.1,775,676.00 payable less PAYE by 01.10.2024 failing interest at court rates from the date of judgment until full payment
- 2.The respondent to pay costs of the suit
- 3.Respondents to bear own costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the Employment Act, 2007 (specific constitutional/statutory article not stated in judgment)
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination was unlawful in the broad terms pleaded / damages of Kshs.26,902,206.12
Only 6 months' salary compensation was awarded; other heads found unjustified
Reinstatement
Not granted; compensation in lieu was awarded
Severance pay for redundancy
No redundancy established
Payment for unexpired contractual period and for years to mandatory retirement age
No disablement attributable to respondents shown; fixed tenure considered
Costs
The claimant has substantially succeeded and is awarded costs of the suit; respondents to bear own costs of the suit (as between themselves).
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.
In conclusion, judgment is hereby entered for the claimant against the 1st respondent for: 1. Payment of Kshs.1,775,676.00 payable less PAYE by 01.10.2024 failing interest to be payable thereon at court rates from today until full payment.
The Court finds that the procedure was unfair and without the disciplinary hearing, it cannot be found that the termination was based upon genuine and fair reasons per sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007.
The claimant has substantially succeeded and is awarded costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Costs orders appear internally inconsistent: the respondent is ordered to pay costs of the suit and yet the 'Respondents to bear own costs of the suit.'
The claimant's memorandum pleads 1st respondent and '2nd respondent' but the final orders are entered only against the 1st respondent, with no express orders against the 2nd respondent.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge v Kenya Railways Corporation & another (Cause E719 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1927 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Memorandum of Claim dated 05.11.2020 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1927/eng@2024-07-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.