Nyoike v Del Monte (K) Ltd (Cause E920 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 747 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a supervisor was unfairly dismissed because the employer couldn't prove its reasons, winning notice pay, leave pay and five months' salary.
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 dismissed; and if yes,
- 2.Whether he is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the dismissal was procedurally fair under Section 41 of the Employment Act
Procedurally fair - show cause letter issued, response considered, oral hearing granted and attendance with a witness advised
The Claimant was issued a show cause letter which he answered, and was invited to a physical disciplinary hearing. Although he complained of lack of representation, he admitted he was advised to attend with a witness but failed to do so. Relying on Philip Kimosop v Kingdom Bank Limited and Anthony Mkala Chitavi, the court found the ingredients of Section 41 procedural fairness satisfied.
Whether the Respondent proved valid and fair reasons for the dismissal under Sections 43 and 45
No - the cause of the accident was never investigated and the alleged policy breach was not proved
The burden shifted to the Respondent to justify the termination. The dismissal letter referenced an investigation report, yet RW1 confirmed no investigation report was filed and none was conducted; the accident was never reported to police. The show cause letter and dismissal letter did not allege assignment of an unlicensed driver. The alleged non-assignment policy was not produced. The Respondent therefore failed to establish the reasons it genuinely held.
Entitlement to reliefs
Notice pay, July salary, leave pay, certificate of service and reduced compensation of 5 months' salary awarded; discrimination and service pay claims failed
Terminal dues were not denied and were awarded. On compensation, the court found that although the Claimant was a passenger, as a senior supervisor he witnessed overloading and over-speeding without intervention, contributing to his own fate, warranting a reduced award of 5 months' salary under Section 49. Discrimination was unproved and service pay was excluded by NSSF/Provident Fund deductions.
Legal principles established
#- Fair termination requires both procedural fairness and valid, substantively justified reasons established by the employer
- Where an employer alleges an employee breached a workplace policy, the policy must be produced in evidence to be verified
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Claimant was wrongfully and unfairly dismissed
- 2.One month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 89,281/-
- 3.Salary for 17 days worked in July 2023 at Kshs. 50,600/-
- 4.5 months' salary as compensation for wrongful and unfair dismissal at Kshs. 446,405/-
- 5.Pay in lieu of leave not taken at Kshs. 62,496/-
- 6.The Respondent to issue the Claimant with a certificate of service within 14 days of the judgment
- 7.The Respondent to bear the costs of the suit with interest at court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full
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 (first-instance employment claim)
Relief refused
#General damages for discrimination
The Claimant did not prove a case of discrimination
Service pay
The Respondent made NSSF and Provident Fund deductions, disqualifying service pay
Costs
The Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit and interest at court rate from the date of this judgment until payment in full.
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.
In the end, I reach the conclusion that the Respondent has not proved fair and justified grounds to dismiss the Claimant. The Claimant’s dismissal is found unfair on this account.
It is telling that even when the accident resulted in injuries to a number of the Respondent’s employees, no report of the accident was made to the police and no investigation on the cause of the accident was conducted, yet the dismissal letter refers to an investigation report
what the Respondent refers to as the policy of non-assignment that the Claimant is said to have breached, was not produced in evidence, and hence its existence and content cannot be verified.
A declaration that the Claimant was wrongfully and unfairly dismissed.
The Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit and interest at court rate from the date of this judgment until payment in full.
Issues in the judgment
#The dismissal letter as quoted refers to a disciplinary hearing on 12th July 2023, while the pleadings and evidence state the hearing was conducted on 17th July 2023
The Respondent's dismissal letter relied on an investigation report although RW1 confirmed no investigation report was filed or conducted
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyoike v Del Monte (K) Ltd (Cause E920 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 747 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 9th November 2023 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/747/eng@2025-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.