Ashiono v Family Health International (FHI 360) (Cause 217 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 713 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a senior manager's unfair termination claim, holding the employer proved both a valid reason and fair disciplinary procedure.
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 Claimant was unfairly terminated.
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether the employer had valid and fair reasons for the termination under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
Valid reasons existed - data celebrated by the Claimant was exaggerated and compromised data integrity
The Claimant, as Acting COP and overall supervisor, was ultimately responsible for data integrity under her job description. She acknowledged the discrepancy of 1,675 patients yet congratulated her team for an inaccurate 95.4% DQA score. Her attempt to blame the M&E Director failed since no queries were raised with that director. Applying the reasonable employer test, the dismissal fell within the band of reasonableness.
Whether the termination procedure under section 41 was fair
Procedure was proper - show cause issued, response received, hearing attended with a colleague of choice, and appeal exercised
The Claimant received a show cause letter with three allegations, responded to it, attended the disciplinary hearing accompanied by a colleague of choice, and was paid in lieu of notice, with a right of appeal which she exercised. Her claim that documents were withheld failed because she had acknowledged the data integrity issues in her own email of 21st September 2018 and was fully aware of the charges.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought
None of the reliefs were granted as the termination was fair and terminal dues were paid
Having found valid reasons and fair procedure, and that terminal dues had been paid per the termination letter, the court held the Claimant was not entitled to any reliefs. The claim for the remainder of the project period also failed because the contract contained a termination clause exercisable by either party, and the certificate of service prayer was abandoned as the certificate had been issued.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination to be fair the employer must show both a valid reason and a fair procedure
- The reasonableness test for dismissal is whether a reasonable employer could have dismissed on the facts - a band of reasonableness applies
- An employee with ultimate supervisory responsibility for project data cannot pass responsibility for data integrity to subordinates
- Where an employee is aware of the substance of the charges, a request for more documents at a disciplinary hearing may be an attempt to buy time
Court orders
#- 1.The claimant's claim is dismissed with costs.
- 2.It is so ordered (final disposition).
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (sections 41, 43, 45, 49, 51) and Article 162(2) of the Constitution (implied by court's remit; not expressly cited in the reproduced judgment)
Relief refused
#Declaration of unfair/unlawful termination
Court found valid reasons and fair procedure
Compensation under section 49 (12 months' salary, Kshs 11,700,000)
Claimant not entitled to any reliefs since termination was fair
Gratuity of Kshs 6,825,000 for 7 years
Not entitled to reliefs; terminal dues already paid
Payment of 21 pending leave days (Kshs 682,500)
Not entitled to any reliefs
Damages for remainder of contract (Kshs 43,875,000)
Contract had a termination clause usable by either party
Certificate of service compliant with section 51
Abandoned by the Claimant - certificate already issued
Costs
The claim dismissed with costs to the Respondent - 'The claimant's claim is therefore found without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs'
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.
for a termination to be fair the employer must show that it had valid reason for doing so and that the termination was carried out through a fair procedure
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 Court is therefore satisfied that the procedure for the termination was proper and in accordance with the respondents HR Policy and Manual. No prejudice was occasioned to her.
The claimant's claim is therefore found without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the show cause letter and response - pleaded and evidenced as 26th March 2019 / 1st April 2019, but the determination refers to 26th March 2018 / 1st April 2018
Malformed/fractured text in the framing of the issues for determination
Prayer (c) figure appears internally inconsistent - pleaded as 'Kshs 11,7000,000/='
Typographical errors in case names as printed (e.g. 'Henrv Isaiah Onielo', 'Kenfreight(E.A0 Limited')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ashiono v Family Health International (FHI 360) (Cause 217 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 713 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as reproduced. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/713/eng@2025-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.