Omwamba v Kenya National Library Services (Cause E723 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 195 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found an employee deserved dismissal but was denied fair procedure, so the employer must pay one month's salary as compensation.
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 contract was fairly terminated under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to reinstatement or other remedies
- 3.Whether the Respondent has established its Counterclaim
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the dismissal
Termination procedurally flawed under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
The HRMAC meeting of 19th July 2021 was a multi-agenda meeting, not a disciplinary hearing. No evidence of invitation to the Claimant, no record of his attendance or explanation for absence, no witnesses or documents before the Committee, and no record of the Claimant's position. The procedure thus fell below the minimum statutory standards of fairness under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Substantive fairness / valid reason for dismissal
The Respondent had valid reason justifying dismissal
The Court found a pattern of mismanagement from shortly after employment through to dismissal, including unbanked revenue converted to personal use, neglect of duty, failure to implement Covid-19 reopening protocols, and a final warning acknowledged by the Claimant. This established a valid reason under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act notwithstanding the procedural defects.
Remedies - reinstatement and compensation
Reinstatement declined; 1 month's salary awarded as compensation
The Claimant had served 5 years and 5 months but caused or contributed enormously to the circumstances of his dismissal, so reinstatement was not reasonable, practicable or lawful. In the absence of pay slips from either side, the Court applied Section 10(7) of the Employment Act to adopt the Claimant's pleaded salary of Kshs. 85,000 and awarded the equivalent of 1 month's salary.
Counterclaim of Kshs. 72,053
Counterclaim not established and declined
Neither the Human Resource Officer nor the Internal Auditor proved the components of the counterclaim. The revenue alleged to have been misappropriated may have been recovered from the Claimant's salary per the CEO's letter of 14th April 2020, and no evidence was led on the office phones or petty cash voucher claims; these remained bare pleadings unsupported by evidence.
Legal principles established
#- An employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before dismissal, per Section 41 of the Employment Act; a meeting that proceeds without evidence of invitation or of the employee's position does not meet the statutory minimum standards of procedural fairness.
- Where an employer fails to produce the contract or written particulars to disprove disputed particulars, the burden of proving or disproving the disputed particulars rests with the employer (Section 10(7) of the Employment Act).
Court orders
#- 1.It is declared that termination was based on valid grounds, but flawed in the manner of its execution
- 2.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant, equivalent of 1-month salary at Kshs. 85,000, in compensation for unfair termination
- 3.No order on the costs
- 4.No order on interest
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, Sections 41, 43 and 45 (as framed by the Court); no constitutional provision invoked
Relief refused
#Reinstatement
The Claimant caused or contributed enormously to the circumstances leading to his dismissal; reinstatement not reasonable, practicable or lawful
Permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from arbitrary dismissal
The Claimant had already been dismissed; such an order would amount to judicial overreach
Counterclaim of Kshs. 72,053
Not established through the evidence of the Respondent's witnesses; bare pleadings unsupported by evidence
Costs and interest
Court made no order on costs or interest
Costs
No order on the costs; no order on interest.
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.
It is declared that termination was based on valid grounds, but flawed in the manner of its execution.
The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant, equivalent of 1- month salary at Kshs. 85,000, in compensation for unfair termination.
Procedure did not conform to the minimum statutory standards of fairness, under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.
The Court is nevertheless convinced that there was a pattern, clearly establishing that the Claimant had failed serially, in management of the Respondent's Kisii Branch, warranting that he is dismissed.
Such an order would amount to judicial overreach. The prayer is bizarre and is declined.
The Counterclaim is declined.
Issues in the judgment
#Case title, case number and neutral citation do not appear in the extract supplied
Date inconsistency in the judgment regarding the Claimant's acknowledgment of the final warning letter
Internal contradiction in the judgment on the purpose of the disciplinary hearing invitation - the Claimant said he never saw it, while the HR Officer said an invitation letter was posted
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omwamba v Kenya National Library Services (Cause E723 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 195 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/195/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.