Gachiri v Thika Water & Sewerage Co Ltd; Kenya Union of Commercial Food & Allied Workers (Interested Party) (Cause E174 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 349 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld the dismissal of an employee who accepted Kshs 10,000 from a customer, ruling the employer followed a fair process and proved dishonesty.
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 summary dismissal of the Claimant was unfair (procedural fairness)
- 2.Whether the Respondent proved valid and fair reasons for the dismissal (substantive fairness)
- 3.Appropriate remedies, including severance/service pay, terminal benefits and a Certificate of Service
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the summary dismissal
The Respondent substantially complied with sections 35(1) and 41 of the Employment Act and clauses 20.19 and 20.5 of the CBA; the dismissal was procedurally fair.
A show-cause letter dated 10 August 2021 set out the allegations and was copied to the Union; the Claimant responded and attended a hearing on 10 September 2021 with 3 union representatives, where witnesses were called and questioned. The particulars of the complaint were in the show-cause notice and the customer merely repeated them. Assertions about the Commercial Manager drafting the complaint were unsupported. No prejudice to the Claimant was demonstrated.
Substantive fairness of the summary dismissal
The Respondent proved valid and fair reasons for dismissal: the Claimant received Kshs 10,000/- from a customer to facilitate adjustment of the customer's water bill.
The Claimant did not deny receiving the Kshs 10,000/- but claimed it was to help the customer's son gain school admission. The complaint letter and text messages showed the money was meant to facilitate adjustment of the water bill. The customer's hearing testimony that it was not a bribe was contradicted by her complaint and the texts, and the Court declined to second-guess her shift of story. Receipt of unreceipted monies in a public service was dishonest regardless of label.
Service pay
The claim failed because the Claimant contributed to a pension scheme.
Section 35(5) of the Employment Act excludes service pay where the employee is a member of a statutory pension scheme. The October 2021 pay slip showed she contributed to CPF, a pension scheme, so she was not entitled to service pay.
Terminal benefits
The claim of Kshs 1,731,786/- was declined for want of proof.
The Claimant pleaded terminal benefits of Kshs 1,731,786/- but produced no evidence, contractual provision or legal basis supporting the head of claim; an unproved claim cannot be sustained.
Legal principles established
#- Sections 35(1) and 41 of the Employment Act, 2007 set out the elements of procedural fairness in a disciplinary process, which a Collective Bargaining Agreement may supplement.
- Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007 require an employer to prove the validity and fairness of the reasons leading to termination of employment.
- A Certificate of Service is a statutory entitlement.
- An employee of a public service who receives unreceipted monies connected to her duties acts dishonestly regardless of how the money is characterised.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent to issue a Certificate of Service to the Claimant within 21 days
- 2.The Cause is dismissed with 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 over a trade dispute reported under the Labour Relations Act (referred to as a trade dispute reported to the Cabinet Secretary, Labour); Employment Act, 2007
Relief refused
#Severance/service pay of Kshs 802,555/-
The Claimant was a contributor to CPF, a pension scheme, and is therefore not entitled to service pay
Terminal benefits of Kshs 1,731,786/-
No evidential, contractual or legal basis was laid for the claim
All other reliefs pleaded
The Court found the dismissal procedurally and substantively fair
Costs
The Cause is dismissed with costs (costs to the Respondent).
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 is satisfied that the Respondent was in substantial compliance with the dictates of procedural fairness.
The Court finds that the Respondent proved valid and fair reasons to dismiss the Claimant.
By shortcircuiting the system, the Claimant was being dishonest and it does not matter whether the money was named as a bribe or not.
A Certificate of Service is a statutory entitlement and the Respondent should issue one to the Claimant.
Flowing from the above, save for a Certificate of Service to be issued within 21 days, the Court finds and declares that the Claimant is not deserving of any of the reliefs pleaded. The Cause is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number and neutral citation are not stated anywhere in the judgment as provided
The judgment records appearances for an 'Interested Party' (the Union) but the Union is not named as a party in the pleadings section or defined as one in the orders
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gachiri v Thika Water & Sewerage Co Ltd; Kenya Union of Commercial Food & Allied Workers (Interested Party) (Cause E174 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 349 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/349/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.