Mbogo v Priyann Enterprises Limited (Cause E728 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 666 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a storekeeper's dismissal unlawful because her employer couldn't prove the allegations and never gave her a fair hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Was there a justifiable 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 the employer proved a valid and fair reason for summary dismissal
The Respondent failed to prove the reasons for dismissal; the loading notes exhibited were not linked to godown no. 4 and the Claimant was not the sole custodian of the keys.
The Respondent's case depended entirely on loading notes said not to have been signed by the Claimant. Those notes did not indicate the godown to which they related, and the Claimant disowned them in cross-examination. The Respondent also did not rebut evidence that keys to the godown were commonly accessible. The evidential gaps meant the employer failed to discharge the burden under Section 45(2)(a) and (b).
Whether the procedure for termination was fair under Section 41 of the Employment Act
The termination was procedurally unfair; no evidence of notice of allegations or a disciplinary hearing.
The Claimant was suspended on 30th November 2020 and summarily dismissed on 11th December 2020 with no evidence she was informed that termination was contemplated or invited to a hearing with a fellow employee or union representative. Applying Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui, none of the four elements of a fair procedure under Section 41 was met, rendering the dismissal procedurally unfair and unlawful.
Entitlement to reliefs
Notice pay and six months' compensation awarded; accrued leave, December salary and service pay declined as paid or statutorily excluded.
Following findings of unfair termination, the Court awarded one month's notice pay and six months' gross salary as compensation, considering the length of employment and circumstances of termination. Accrued leave and December 2020 salary were shown to have been paid with terminal dues, and service pay was barred because the Claimant was an NSSF member under Section 35(6).
Legal principles established
#- An employer must prove that the reasons for dismissal are fair, valid and related to the employee's conduct to the required standard under Section 45(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act.
- Compliance with Section 41 of the Employment Act requires notification of the allegations and an opportunity to make representations in the presence of a fellow employee or shop floor union representative.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant against the Respondent
- 2.Award of Kshs 45,679.00 being one month's salary in lieu of notice
- 3.Award of Kshs 274,074.00 being compensatory damages equivalent to six months of her salary
- 4.Total award of Kshs 319,753.00
- 5.Interest on the total award at Court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 6.The Claimant shall 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 disputes (Employment Act); judgment rendered pursuant to Employment Act ss. 41, 45, 35(6)
Relief refused
#Accrued annual leave for 2020
Already paid together with terminal dues
Salary for 13 days worked in December 2020
Paid as part of terminal dues; Claimant confirmed receiving December 2020 salary
Service pay
Claimant was a registered NSSF member, excluded by Section 35(6) of the Employment Act
Costs
The Claimant shall 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.
The foregoing gaps lead me to conclude that the Respondent has failed to prove to the required standard that the reasons advanced for the dismissal of the Claimant from its employment were fair, valid and related to her conduct.
In the end, the Claimant's termination from employment was procedurally unfair hence unlawful.
In the final analysis, Judgment is entered in favour of the Claimant against the Respondent as follows: a. The Claimant is awarded the sum of Kshs 45,679.00 being one month's salary in lieu of notice.
The total award is Kshs 319,753.00. d. Interest shall apply on the amount in (c) at Court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full. e. The Claimant shall have the costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The Respondent is referred to generically throughout; its actual name is not disclosed anywhere in the judgment text, making full case identification impossible from the document alone.
The case number of the suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbogo v Priyann Enterprises Limited (Cause E728 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 666 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (ELRC, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/666/eng@2025-02-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.