G4S Kenya Limited v Arasa (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E019 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2814 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed G4S must pay an unfairly dismissed employee because it ignored its own disciplinary manual.
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 learned magistrate erred in holding that the disciplinary and grievance procedure was violated and the disciplinary process illegal, null and void
- 2.Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the respondent received cash from clients which he did not bank on time
- 3.Whether the respondent was unfairly dismissed
- 4.Whether the award of six months' salary as compensation for unfair termination was justified
- 5.Whether the award of leave not taken for nine years was justified
- 6.Whether the award of salary for 15 days worked in May 2018 was justified
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
The employer breached its own Disciplinary and Grievance policy: no witnesses were called at the hearing, documents were not supplied, and the appeal outcome was not communicated within 2 working days with written reasons; the dismissal was therefore procedurally unfair
The Court reviewed the claimant's evidence showing no witnesses testified at the disciplinary hearing, the investigation report was not supplied at commencement, and the appeal decision was communicated outside the 2-day policy window. Section 45(2) of the Employment Act requires a valid and fair reason plus fair procedure. Failure to follow the employer's own manual rendered the hearing flawed, justifying the trial magistrate's finding of unfair dismissal.
Payment in lieu of untaken leave over nine years
The trial magistrate properly found the respondent entitled to payment in lieu of leave; the respondent did not proceed on leave despite records being channeled online
The respondent indicated leave was channeled through the online platform but he never proceeded on leave. The appellant, as custodian of employment records, produced no leave application forms or proof of payment for accrued leave. The trial magistrate's finding that the respondent was entitled to payment in lieu of leave was therefore proper and not disturbed.
Validity of the reasons for termination
The trial magistrate's findings on the validity of the reasons stood; the Court found no reason to disturb them
The Court re-evaluated the evidence, noting the claimant denied receiving CIT payments and that key witnesses were not called at the disciplinary hearing. Having considered the evidence, the Court was convinced the trial magistrate applied his mind correctly and declined to disturb the findings, including on the fairness of the dismissal and compensation.
Legal principles established
#- Failure by an employer to adhere to its own disciplinary process as provided in its manual renders the disciplinary hearing flawed and the termination procedurally unfair under section 45(2) of the Employment Act
- This being a first appeal, the Court has an obligation to re-evaluate the evidence afresh
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.The appellant to pay costs of the appeal and of the lower Court
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate Court, Nakuru (CMELRC)
- CMELRC Case No. 3 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court (appellate re-evaluation of facts and law)
Relief refused
#Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of 29th July 2022 and substituting it with an order dismissing the suit
The Court found the trial magistrate applied his mind correctly and made a proper finding; no reason to disturb the findings
Costs
The appellant to pay costs of this appeal and of the lower Court.
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 being the 1st appeal to this Court, this Court has an obligation to re-evaluate the evidence afresh which this Court has done in this judgment.
In the Court's view, failure to adhere to disciplinary process as provided in the manual would render the disciplinary hearing fiawed and therefore it was proper for the trial magistrate to make a finding as this.
A termination of employment by an employer is unfair if the employer fails to prove― a. that the reason for the termination is valid;
I find no merit in his appeal and I dismiss it accordingly.
The appellant to pay costs of this appeal and of the lower Court.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently refers to the trial party names, at one point stating 'the respondent/ appellant herein' in describing the lower Court parties
The judgment refers to the claimant's admission that the fraud was done by Sigilai described as working under him, while the defence pleading named 'Victor Singilai' as branch administrator; the names/spellings differ
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "G4S Kenya Limited v Arasa (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E019 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2814 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELRC Appeal arising from CMELRC Case No. 3 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2814/eng@2024-11-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.