Hayombe v Kenya Water Institute (Cause E151 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 488 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that firing a CEO without valid reasons or a fair hearing was unlawful, awarding him about Kshs 4.9 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there were valid reasons to warrant the claimant's termination.
- 2.Whether due process was followed.
- 3.Whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether there were valid reasons for termination
No valid reasons were established; the grounds in the termination letter (absconding duty and non-performance) were not proved - absconding did not arise as the claimant was still on compulsory leave, and the non-performance ground was vague
The termination letter cited desertion from 27th January 2022 and clause 5 of the contract (termination on performance). The court found the claimant was still on extended compulsory leave and had not been recalled, so absconding did not arise. Clause 5's performance ground was vague with no particulars of what the claimant did or failed to do. Other allegations investigated were never brought out in the termination letter, so reasons were not established under section 43.
Whether due process was followed
The disciplinary process was procedurally unfair: the claimant was not given the audit report, adequate notice, or an adjournment despite requesting them, so his right to a fair hearing was denied
The claimant was invited to a hearing by email at 12:05 a.m. on 2nd February 2022 for a hearing on 3rd February 2022, attached to a show-cause letter dated 27th January 2022. He promptly responded requesting the audit report, clarification of the erroneous meeting date, access to his office, and a rescheduling. All requests were ignored and his services were terminated the next day, contrary to sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act and section 4(3) and (4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Whether the termination was unfair
Having found no due process and no valid reason, the termination was unfair and unjustified under section 45(2) of the Employment Act
Section 45(2) renders a termination unfair where the employer fails to prove a valid reason, a fair reason related to conduct, capacity or compatibility or operational requirements, and compliance with fair procedure. Both limbs - validity of reasons and fair procedure - failed on the evidence, so the dismissal could not stand.
Remedies
The claimant was awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice and 8 months' compensation for unfair termination, less statutory deductions, plus costs and interest
Although the claimant sought reinstatement or, in the alternative, up to 12 months' compensation, the court awarded monetary relief only: notice pay of Kshs 491,268 and 8 months' compensation (Kshs 4,421,412) for the injustice of not being heard, plus costs and interest. Reinstatement and other heads were not granted.
Legal principles established
#- An employer bears the burden of proving the reason or reasons for termination, failing which the termination is deemed unfair
- Where administrative action adversely affects a person's rights, the administrator must give prior and adequate notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the information, materials and evidence to be relied upon
Court orders
#- 1.Respondent to pay the claimant one month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 491,268/-
- 2.Respondent to pay compensation for unlawful termination of 8 months' salary (8 x Kshs 491,268/-) totalling Kshs 4,421,412/- less statutory deductions
- 3.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over employment and labour relations disputes (Employment Act, 2007; the claim asserts the court's jurisdiction to hear the dispute)
Relief refused
#Unconditional reinstatement to his former position
Reinstatement was the primary prayer but the court instead awarded monetary remedies; no express reasons given for declining reinstatement, and the award structure indicates it was not granted
House allowance of Kshs 73,690.20
Pleaded and submitted for but not included in the court's award
Severance pay
Pleaded but not awarded in the final orders
Certificate of service
Pleaded but not addressed in the court's award
Costs
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates w.e.f the date of this judgment
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.
It is therefore my finding that there were no valid reasons established to warrant the claimant's termination.
It is therefore my finding that the claimant's right to a fair hearing was denied and therefore there was no due process.
Having found that there was no due process and that no valid reason existed to warrant dismissal, it follows that the termination of the claimant was unfair and unjustified.
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates w.e.f the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The cause number and neutral citation of this suit are not stated anywhere in the judgment text provided, making case identification dependent on external records
The judgment contains inconsistent references to the Legal Notice establishing the Public Service Commission Regulations relied on for compulsory leave (Legal Notice No. 4 vs Legal Notice No. 3 of the PSC Regulations 2020)
The claimant's gross salary at termination is stated inconsistently in the judgment (Kshs 491,268 in most passages versus Kshs 491,286 in the witness statement summary)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Zizi v Sifa Investment Limited (Cause E098 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 972 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 972 (KLR)27 Mar 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hayombe v Kenya Water Institute (Cause E151 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 488 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/488/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.