Kenya Electrical Trades & Allied Workers Union v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd (Cause E603 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2694 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya Power was ordered to pay a wrongfully dismissed employee over Kshs.1.5 million because it could not prove the bribery allegations behind his dismissal.
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 parties were in a contract of service
- 2.Whether and how the grievant's employment was terminated
- 3.Whether the dismissal was unfair
- 4.What remedies/compensation are due under section 49 of the Employment Act
Key legal issues
#Whether the dismissal of the grievant was unfair
The dismissal was substantively unfair because the respondent did not prove the validity of the reasons - neither the receipt of Kshs.10,000 nor the failure to report illegal supply was established
The Court found procedure was accorded (notice, hearing, appeal), but tested validity of reasons under sections 43 and 45. RW1, the investigator, admitted there was no evidence of the deposit of the money, the CCTV was not exhibited, and the complainant did not complain. The grievant had properly reported site irregularities to his supervisor and approved the wayleave only after anomalies were corrected. Both reasons were therefore invalid and unfair.
Whether the failure to call the supervisor, Engineer Lawi, impaired the disciplinary procedure
It did not; the grievant was at liberty to bring witnesses and could not fault the respondent for not calling the supervisor, though his non-involvement was an aggravating factor on compensation
The grievant had been invited and allowed to bring witnesses at the disciplinary and appeal hearings but did not call Engineer Lawi, so procedure was not impaired. However, in assessing compensation under section 49, the Court treated the respondent's failure to involve the supervisor, who could have confirmed proper performance, and the failure to involve the police or EACC as aggravating factors.
Appropriate remedies under section 49 of the Employment Act
Maximum 12 months' gross salary as compensation for unfair termination plus one month's salary in lieu of notice, total Kshs.1,544,959.00
The Court considered the section 49 factors: over 22 years of service with a clean record, no contribution to the termination, unfair implication in an unfounded bribery allegation, and aggravating conduct by the respondent in not involving the police or EACC and not involving the supervisor. It awarded the maximum 12 months' compensation and one month's notice pay, less PAYE.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must show that the reasons for termination were valid under section 43 and fair under section 45 of the Employment Act; unfounded bribery allegations unsupported by evidence render a dismissal substantively unfair
- Failure by the employer to involve statutory anti-corruption agencies in serious bribery allegations is an aggravating factor in assessing compensation
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the dismissal was unlawful and unfair
- 2.Respondent to pay claimant Kshs.1,544,959.00 (less PAYE) by 01.12.2024, failing interest at court rates from date of judgment until full payment
- 3.Respondent to pay costs of the suit
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 (sections 43, 45, 49) - not otherwise stated in judgment
Relief refused
#Reinstatement as recommended by the conciliator
Not awarded as a remedy; monetary compensation and notice pay were awarded instead; conciliation report had been rejected by respondent and reinstatement was not among the orders made
Respondent's alleged liability of Kshs.444,438.91 against the grievant
No counterclaim or set-off filed and no evidence strictly establishing the claims
Costs
The respondent will pay the claimant's costs of the suit.
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.
The Court finds that as submitted for the claimant, both reasons for the dismissal were invalid and unfair.
In that consideration the grievant is awarded maximum 12 months' compensation making 12 x 118, 843.00 = Kshs.1, 426, 116.00. He is also awarded Kshs.118, 843.00 being one month in lieu of the due termination notice.
The respondent to pay the claimant Kshs.1, 544, 959.00 (less PAYE), by 01.12.2024 failing interest to be payable thereon at Court rates from the date of this judgment until full payment.
The grievant appears to have properly performed his work as a Wayleaves Oficer but then unfairly victimised and punished. He had a clean record of service and did not contribute to his termination.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to issues (1st, 2nd, 3rd) but the numbered issues themselves are not set out in the judgment text
Date of employment is inconsistently stated
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Electrical Trades & Allied Workers Union v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd (Cause E603 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2694 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Employment and Labour Relations Court Claim dated 27.07.2022 (Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2694/eng@2024-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.