Ochako v Delmonte Kenya Limited (Cause 858 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 475 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld the dismissal of a payroll accountant who changed her own salary, even though the company lost no money.
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 reason for the claimant's dismissal (alteration of her salary and benefits in the live payroll system) was valid and fair under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007
- 2.Whether the procedure followed in dismissing the claimant complied with section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007 (notice and hearing)
- 3.Whether the claimant is entitled to the pleaded terminal benefits, general damages, and certificate of service
Key legal issues
#Validity of the reason for termination
The reason - the claimant's alteration of her salary and allowances in the payroll system - was valid and fair, establishing misconduct under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
The claimant admitted accessing the payroll system and amending her salary from Kshs. 91,015 to Kshs. 250,000 and adjusting allowances. Her explanation that it was a system test was contradicted because the changes were made on the live environment rather than the test environment. The court found the misconduct established and that whether another employer would have dismissed was immaterial.
Procedural fairness of the dismissal
The disciplinary process complied with section 41 of the Employment Act - the claimant received notices, responded, was heard, and participated in the disciplinary hearing.
The respondent issued a show-cause letter dated 07.12.2020, a hearing notice dated 10.12.2020 informing the claimant of her right to a witness, and convened a disciplinary hearing with recorded minutes signed by all present. The claimant herself testified that she had undergone the disciplinary process, supporting the finding of procedural fairness.
Legal principles established
#- An employer dismissing an employee for misconduct must show a valid and fair reason existing at the time of dismissal (section 43) and fair procedure (sections 41 and 45); a self-confessed unauthorised alteration of payroll in a live environment justifies summary dismissal.
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed
- 2.The claimant to pay 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 disputes (Employment Act, 2007; claim for unfair and wrongful termination)
Relief refused
#Full benefits amounting to Kshs. 2,097,270
The dismissal was found fair in procedure and substance; the misconduct was established.
General damages for unlawful and wrongful termination
The dismissal was held not unfair; the reason was valid and existed at dismissal.
Interest and other reliefs
Suit dismissed in its entirety; claimant confirmed she had been paid salaries and leave days and received the certificate of service.
Costs
The suit is dismissed with 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 upholds the respondent’s case that the dismissal was fair in procedure and substance.
The reason for termination is shown to have been valid and existing as at dismissal per section 43 of the Employment Act, 2007 and the reason was fair as relating to the claimant’s misconduct per section 45 of the Act.
The changes the claimant made on her payslip were discovered before payments were made and the respondent did not make any actual monetary loss per the evidence by the respondent’s witness.
In conclusion the suit is hereby dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, and the parties are not named - only 'claimant' and 'respondent' appear.
The opening numbered paragraphs (1) appear blank in the judgment as supplied.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ochako v Delmonte Kenya Limited (Cause 858 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 475 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/475/eng@2025-02-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.