Onyango v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E595 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 167 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled KRA unfairly fired an employee because it sent a critical disciplinary letter to her email account it had blocked.
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 termination was substantively justified on valid reasons
- 2.Whether the Claimant was accorded a fair disciplinary process and due process under Section 41 of the Employment Act and Article 47 of the Constitution
- 3.Whether the Claimant's prolonged suspension (over three and a half years) was contrary to the Respondent's human resource manual and labour laws
- 4.Whether the Claimant was entitled to the remedies sought, including compensation for time lost and damages for unlawful termination
Key legal issues
#Whether the show cause letter and hearing invitation were properly served on the Claimant
The second show cause letter was never received by the Claimant as it was sent to her official KRA email account which was blocked during her suspension
The court found the second show cause letter dated 15th July 2019 was sent to the Claimant's official email while she was on suspension, with her account blocked. The respondents also failed to establish that the yahoo.com email address used to invite her to the hearing belonged to the Claimant. In the absence of proof of service, the disciplinary process could not be deemed fair.
Whether the termination was substantively and procedurally fair
The Claimant was unfairly and unjustly terminated without valid reasons being established and without due process
The Respondent's witnesses failed to provide substantive evidence linking the Claimant to the alleged misconduct. The court applied Section 45(2) of the Employment Act, requiring the employer to prove valid reasons and fair procedure. Having found the process flawed and reasons unestablished, the termination was unfair.
Whether the Claimant's claim that documents were withheld was proved
The Claimant failed to produce the alleged human resource manual and to prove that she sought documents that were never provided
While the Claimant asserted her suspension exceeded three years contrary to the Respondent's human resource manual and that documents were withheld, she did not produce the manual or evidence of her requests. This element of her claim therefore remained unproven.
Legal principles established
#- An employer bears the burden of proving both valid reasons for termination and adherence to fair procedure under Section 45(2) of the Employment Act
- Where an employer cannot establish that an employee was properly notified of and invited to a disciplinary hearing, due process is not satisfied
Court orders
#- 1.8 months' salary as compensation for the unfair termination, based on gross pay (8 x Kshs 119,000 = Kshs 952,000) less statutory deductions
- 2.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of the judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (implied; not expressly cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the termination and the delay in administrative action were illegal, null, and void
The court did not grant a declaration but instead awarded compensation for unfair termination; no declaration was issued in the final orders
Adequate compensation for time lost out of employment
The court did not award compensation for time lost out of employment, only 8 months' salary for unfair termination
Damages for unlawful termination
The court awarded compensation under Section 49 of the Employment Act framework rather than general damages for unlawful termination
Costs
The Respondent will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgement
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.
Having found that the claimant was terminated without due process and without establishing the existence of valid reasons leading to the termination, I find that the claimant was unfairly and unjustly terminated
In the absence of any confirmation that the claimant was indeed invited to a disciplinary hearing and she declined to attend, it follows that there is no evidence that the claimant was subjected to a fair disciplinary process and that there were valid reasons leading to her termination
it is safe to conclude that this second show cause letter was never received by the claimant
8 months’ salary as compensation for the unfair termination based on her gross pay= 8x119,000=952,000/- less statutory deductions
The Respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgement
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the dates of the Claimant's suspension - the claim narrative states suspension from 8th February 2016, while the Respondent's pleadings and submissions state 9th November 2016
Inconsistent dates for the dismissal of the Claimant's appeal - paragraph 18 states 12th November 2019, while paragraph 24 states 12th October 2019
The judgment does not state the cause/claim number of the suit anywhere on its face
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyango v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E595 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 167 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/167/eng@2025-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.