Njuki v CIC Insurance Group Ltd (Cause E962 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 416 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a dismissed executive nearly Kshs 13 million because his employer couldn't prove his email document transfer justified summary dismissal.
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 Respondent has proved that there was a valid and fair reason to terminate the employment of the Claimant
- 2.Was the Claimant accorded procedural fairness prior to being terminated from employment?
- 3.Is the Claimant entitled to the reliefs sought?
Key legal issues
#Whether there was a valid and fair reason for termination
The Respondent failed to prove a valid and fair reason. The Claimant transferred documents only to his own personal email, not to unauthorized third parties, and the information was already within his knowledge. The Respondent also did not specify the clauses breached. Applying the reasonable responses test, a reasonable employer would not have dismissed the employee.
The Court applied Sections 43 and 45(2) of the Employment Act and the 'reasonable responses test' from British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift. The Claimant undisputedly transferred documents to his Gmail but there was no evidence of dissemination to unauthorized parties, so no breach of the confidentiality clause was established. The Respondent also failed to cite the specific policy clauses violated, making the alleged violation indecipherable. A reasonable employer would not have dismissed in these circumstances.
Whether the Claimant was accorded procedural fairness
The Claimant was denied a fair hearing because he was not granted reasonable access to the policies he was accused of violating; read-only access was unreasonable and contrary to Article 35(1)(b) of the Constitution and Clause 11.5.4(iv) of the Respondent's HR Manual.
Section 41 and 45(2)(c) of the Employment Act require fair procedure. The Claimant requested physical copies of the four policies cited in the Notice to Show Cause but was offered read-only access, which the panel maintained despite his protests. Relying on Article 35(1)(b) of the Constitution and Katiba Institute, the Court held access must be practical and useful; read-only access to four lengthy policies before a hearing that could end a 30-year career was unreasonable.
Reliefs
Three months' salary in lieu of notice and ten months' gross salary as compensatory damages awarded, taking into account the nearly 30-year employment; leave allowance claim declined as already paid in terminal dues.
Having found both substantive and procedural unfairness, the Court exercised its discretion under the Employment Act to award notice pay per the contract and compensatory damages of ten months' gross salary, factoring in length of service, comparable employment opportunities and the loss of an illustrious career. The leave allowance claim failed because terminal dues had already been paid.
Legal principles established
#- An employer bears the burden under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act to prove a valid, fair reason for termination and that the sanction was within the band of reasonableness
- An employee facing a disciplinary hearing has a constitutional right of access to information under Article 35, and access granted must be practical and serve its intended purpose
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant is awarded three (3) months' salary in lieu of notice being the sum of Kshs 2,991,479.00
- 2.The Claimant is awarded compensatory damages in the sum of Kshs 9,971,597.00 being equivalent to ten (10) months of his gross salary
- 3.Total award is Kshs 12,963,076.00
- 4.Interest on the amount in (c) at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 5.The Claimant shall also have the costs of the suit
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 employment and labour relations disputes (Employment Act; claim for unfair and wrongful termination)
Relief refused
#19 days leave salary compensation and leave day allowance
The allowance was already paid as part of the Claimant's terminal dues
An order compelling the Respondent to issue a letter signed by the Group Managing Director and Human Resource Director clearing the Claimant of all accusations
Not addressed in the Court's final orders; the judgment makes no such order
Costs
The Claimant shall also have the costs of the suit.
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.
All in all, the Court is not satisfied that the Respondent has proved that the reason advanced for terminating the Claimant’s employment was valid, fair and reasonable within the meaning of Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
It is this court’s view that Article 35 of the Constitution as well as Clause 11.5.4 (iv) of the Respondent’s Human Resource Policy & Procedures Manual envisages reasonable access to information. Therefore, such access to information if granted, ought to be practical and should serve the intended purpose.
The correct test is: Was it reasonable for the employers to dismiss him? If no reasonable employer would have dismissed him, then the dismissal was unfair, but if a reasonable employer might reasonably have dismissed him, the dismissal was fair.
The Claimant is awarded compensatory damages in the sum of Kshs 9,971,597.00 being equivalent to ten (10) months of his gross salary.
The Claimant shall also have the costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records the disciplinary hearing date inconsistently, elsewhere stated as 21st June 2022
The judgment alternates between describing the letter in which the Respondent's Managing Director informed the Claimant the documents were in his possession as dated 2nd June 2022 and 6th June 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njuki v CIC Insurance Group Ltd (Cause E962 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 416 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/416/eng@2025-02-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.