Chepkorir v Tristar Global Logistics Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E164 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 207 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employee dismissed by video link while quarantining with COVID-19 was never given a fair hearing, making her dismissal unlawful.
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 Petition is merited
- 2.Whether the Petitioner was unfairly/wrongfully terminated
- 3.Whether the claim of discrimination was proved
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction given Somali governing-law clause
Jurisdiction already settled by a prior ruling of 14th May 2023; Somali law applies as the applicable law but the court retains jurisdiction under the 'any court of equitable jurisdiction' clause
The court distinguished applicable law from jurisdiction, relying on the objective test of closest and most real connection, and declined to revisit an issue already resolved in a prior ruling. The contract's forum clause permitted suit in any court of equitable jurisdiction, so the ELRC could hear the matter despite Somali substantive law.
Fairness of the summary dismissal
Termination unfair and wrongful for breach of section 41 of the Employment Act - no hearing before dismissal
The Petitioner was terminated while quarantined after COVID-19, without being given an opportunity to explain. Although the Respondent paid one month's salary in lieu of notice, the dismissal was summary in substance. Substantive justification alone is insufficient; procedural fairness under sections 41 and 45(2) was mandatory and was not complied with.
Alleged discrimination based on health status and nationality
Claim not proved and denied
The Petitioner adduced no evidence that her termination was motivated by racial or tribal bias or her sickness. Following the requirement of precise pleading of constitutional violations, the court found no specific averment of discrimination and declined the declaratory reliefs.
Quantum of compensation
3 months' salary (USD 3,600) awarded instead of the 12 months sought
Though the Petitioner was entitled to compensation for unfair termination, she served the Respondent for a short period, making the statutory maximum of 12 months' gross salary excessive. The court exercised discretion to award 3 months' equivalent.
Legal principles established
#- Termination for a valid reason or misconduct must be accompanied by a fair process including notification of grounds and an opportunity to be heard
- Failure to accord an employee a hearing before termination renders the termination unfair and wrongful
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the termination of the Petitioner was unfair, wrongful and unprocedural
- 2.Compensation of 3 months' equivalent of salary totalling USD 3,600
- 3.Costs of the Petition awarded to the Petitioner
- 4.Interest at 14% per annum from the date of Judgment until full payment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction; contract provided breach could be addressed in 'any court of equitable jurisdiction'; jurisdiction previously determined in a ruling of 14th May 2023
Relief refused
#Declarations of violation of Articles 27, 28, 41, 43, 45 and 47 of the Constitution (equality/freedom from discrimination, dignity, health, fair labour practices, fair administrative action)
Discrimination not proved; no precise averment; no evidence of violation
12 months' gross salary compensation (USD 14,400)
Petitioner worked for a fairly short period; 12 months would be excessive
Costs
Costs of the Petition awarded to the Petitioner, with interest at 14% per annum from date of Judgment until full payment
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 court finds the Petitioner was not accorded an opportunity to be heard before her termination and so the said termination is unfair and wrongful and unprocedural.
The claim for discrimination however has not been proved. There is no evidence that the Petitioner was terminated due to racial or tribal bias or due to sickness.
She is granted 3 months equivalent of her salary totalling $3600.
She is also awarded costs of the Petition and interest at 14% per annum from date of Judgment until full payment.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment records the Petitioner's resumption date as 17th May 2021 in the analysis but the Petitioner's pleadings state 17th May 2021 while the Respondent's replying affidavit states 17th March 2021 - inconsistent dates within the judgment
Prior jurisdictional ruling dated 14th May 2023 post-dates the Petition of 5th August 2023, an internal chronological inconsistency
Petitioner's prayer describes termination letter as dated 25th May 2021 but submissions describe it as dated 24th May 2021
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chepkorir v Tristar Global Logistics Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E164 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 207 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 5th August 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/207/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.