Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC Cause (Nairobi) – Memorandum of Claim dated 12th March, 2021· [2025] KEELRC 132 (KLR)

Kibore v Kenya Veterinary Vaccines Production Institute & 2 others (Cause E223 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 132 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 January 2025
6,971 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~28 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court upheld a vet institute's dismissal of an employee who claimed he was seconded to a county, and ordered him to refund over Kshs 577,000 in double salary.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a Senior Research and Development Officer at KEVEVAPI, challenged his summary dismissal of 13th January 2021 on grounds of insubordination and absence from duty. He asserted he was lawfully seconded to the County Government of Elgeyo-Marakwet as Chief Officer for Livestock, Cooperatives and Fisheries, alleged the disciplinary process was conducted without his knowledge, claimed violations of Articles 40, 41 and 50 of the Constitution, and sought reinstatement or compensation, exemplary damages, a certificate of service and lifting of a notice to vacate his institutional house. The Respondents maintained the secondment was never properly requested or approved, that the Claimant fabricated an email of 8th March 2020, absconded, drew double salaries from February to May 2020, ignored three invitations to disciplinary hearings, and filed a counterclaim for the salary overpaid, rent from June 2020 and eviction. The court framed three issues: substantive and procedural fairness of the dismissal, alleged constitutional violations, and entitlement to reliefs. It found the Claimant was competitively recruited by the County on a three-year fixed contract rather than seconded, that secondment required the principal employer's agreement, and that valid reasons and fair procedure under sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act were satisfied. The constitutional claim failed for want of precise pleading and proof. The claim was dismissed; the counterclaim for Kshs 577,820.08 was allowed with costs and interest, but the rent claim was rejected as unproved special damage, and the Claimant was ordered to vacate the house immediately.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the summary dismissal was substantively fair

Holding

Dismissal was substantively justified; the Claimant absconded and was not on lawful secondment

Reasoning

The Claimant applied for leave and simultaneously sought secondment after he had already started working for Elgeyo Marakwet County in February 2020. The County confirmed he was competitively recruited on a three-year fixed term contract, not seconded. Pension was never remitted. Absconding is gross misconduct under section 44 of the Employment Act justifying summary dismissal.

p. 12
02

Whether the dismissal was procedurally fair under section 41 of the Employment Act

Holding

Fair procedure was followed; the Claimant received all correspondence and failed to attend three scheduled hearings

Reasoning

The court found the Claimant received the show cause letter, invitations to disciplinary hearings and related correspondence by registered mail, G4S courier and email, as evidenced by his email of 30th September 2020 acknowledging receipt of the letter of 15th September 2020. His denials of receipt were rejected as untruthful.

p. 12
03

Whether the Claimant's constitutional rights under Articles 40, 41 and 50 were violated

Holding

No violation proved; violations must be pleaded and proved with precision

Reasoning

Relying on the Anarita Karimi Njeru standard as restated in Mumo Matemu, the court held the Claimant failed to plead particulars of violation with precision, and in any event the termination was for justifiable reasons reached through fair procedure.

p. 12
04

Whether the Respondents' counterclaim for salary paid during the purported secondment and rent was merited

Holding

Refund of salary (Kshs 577,820.08) allowed; rent claim dismissed for lack of proof

Reasoning

It was not disputed the Claimant drew two salaries from February to May 2020 and he admitted seeking a computation for repayment, so the refund was due. The rent claim failed because the respondent gave no evidence of how the Kshs 6,750 monthly rate was computed, and special damages must be strictly proved.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • For a termination to be fair the employer must demonstrate valid reasons and a fair procedure under section 43 of the Employment Act
  • Secondment requires the agreement and consultation of the principal employer; an employee cannot merely assume secondment without following the prescribed procedure
  • Allegations of constitutional violation must be pleaded and proved with precision
  • Special damages must be strictly proved

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Claimant's claim found without merit and dismissed
  2. 2.Respondents' counterclaim for salary paid February 2020 – May 2020 (Kshs 144,455.02 x 4 = Kshs 577,820.08) allowed
  3. 3.Claim for rent dismissed
  4. 4.Claimant to vacate immediately the respondent's residential house he occupied by virtue of his employment
  5. 5.Respondents to have costs of the counterclaim
  6. 6.Interest on the decretal sum to accrue at court rates from date of judgment until payment in full
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 40, 41 and 50 of the Constitution and the Employment Act (employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the ELRC)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kibore v Kenya Veterinary Vaccines Production Institute & 2 others (Cause E223 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 132 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause (Nairobi) – Memorandum of Claim dated 12th March, 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/132/eng@2025-01-24

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.