Malonza v Amicabre Travel Services Limited (Cause 494 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 197 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a driver's summary dismissal because his employer followed proper disciplinary steps, and employees who skip hearings cannot later claim unfair termination.
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 terminated fairly (procedure)
- 2.Whether termination was based on valid reason
- 3.Whether the Claimant merits the remedies pleaded
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the summary dismissal
The procedure adopted by the Respondent was fair and conformed to the minimum statutory standards under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
The Claimant was confronted with the allegation of carrying unauthorized passengers, asked to give a written explanation, issued a letter to show cause which he read but declined to acknowledge, invited to a disciplinary hearing with notice of his right to be accompanied, and dismissed after a hearing held in his absence following his refusal to attend. His conduct was insubordinate, and the Court disbelieved his assertion that he was not invited to the hearing.
Validity of the reasons for dismissal
The Respondent demonstrated valid reasons under Sections 43, 44, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act
The Claimant admitted awareness of the Drivers Code of Conduct prohibiting unauthorized and excessive passengers. Two Respondent witnesses confirmed he was found carrying unauthorized and excess passengers while assigned to ferry Kenya Airways crew exclusively, jeopardising the exclusive transport contract. His violations were compounded by insubordination: he refused to sign statements, respond to the show-cause letter, or attend the disciplinary hearing.
Remedies
The remedies pleaded were not merited because the dismissal was fair and on valid grounds
Having found both procedural fairness and valid reason, the Court held the Claimant was not entitled to notice pay, compensation for unfair termination, or the other prayers. Terminal dues, including 11 days' pending leave, had been tabulated and remained available to the Claimant upon clearance with the Respondent, which he had declined to do.
Legal principles established
#- An employer satisfies Section 41 of the Employment Act where it issues a letter to show cause, invites the employee to a disciplinary hearing with the right to be accompanied, and may lawfully proceed in the employee's absence where the employee refuses to attend
- Carrying unauthorized and excessive passengers contrary to a workplace code of conduct, compounded by insubordination during the disciplinary process, constitutes gross misconduct under Section 44(4) justifying summary dismissal
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim has no merit and is declined
- 2.The Claimant is at liberty to clear with the Respondent, and collect his terminal dues as tabulated
- 3.No order on the costs
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 41, 43, 44, 45 and 47 applied)
Relief refused
#Notice pay of Kshs. 18,650
The Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct and was not entitled to notice
Annual leave of Kshs. 13,055
Leave balance was tabulated and included in final terminal dues, payable upon clearance
12 months' salary in compensation for unfair termination of Kshs. 223,800
Termination was both procedurally fair and on valid grounds
Costs
No order on the costs.
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 procedure adopted by the Respondent was fair, and in conformity with the minimum statutory standards of fairness, under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act 2007.
The Respondent demonstrated valid reasons, to justify termination, in accordance with Sections 43, 44, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act.
The Respondent correctly proceeded with the disciplinary hearing as scheduled, in the absence of the Claimant.
a. The Claim has no merit and is declined. b. The Claimant is at liberty to clear with the Respondent, and collect his terminal dues as tabulated. c. No order on the costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number and neutral citation are not shown in the text provided; the judgment begins directly with the numbered paragraphs.
The parties are referred to throughout only as 'the Claimant' and 'the Respondent' without names being stated in the judgment text.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Malonza v Amicabre Travel Services Limited (Cause 494 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 197 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/197/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.