Kiarie v Board of Management Nguku Secondary School (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 795 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a school secretary's dismissal because she never responded to a show-cause letter, though she must still receive her certificate of service.
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 dismissal of the appellant was unfair and unlawful.
- 2.Whether the reliefs sought in the lower court were merited.
- 3.What appropriate orders should this court make?
Key legal issues
#Validity of the reason for termination under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
The termination was substantively fair; the allegations of dismal performance, lateness and insubordination constituted a valid reason amounting to a fundamental breach justifying summary dismissal under section 44.
The termination letter cited poor performance of the Receptionist/Typist office. Although the minutes did not show a formal performance evaluation, letters dated 24th October 2019 and BOM minutes of 17th October 2019 accused the appellant of dismal performance, lateness and failure to deliver a letter. The court was satisfied these allegations justified termination and warranted summary dismissal under section 44.
Procedural fairness of the termination
The procedure was fair because the appellant was served with a show cause letter giving her an opportunity to respond, which she failed to utilise.
The employer was instructed by the BOM to take action against the appellant. She was afforded an opportunity to defend herself in writing by responding to the show cause letter dated 24th October 2019 but failed to respond, thereby squandering the opportunity to deny the allegations and to open an oral hearing. The court held such conduct bars the employee from raising the fairness issue in court.
Reliefs payable on termination
All reliefs failed except a certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act, which the trial court erred in denying.
Having found the dismissal fair, compensation and notice pay were unavailable. Claims for underpayment, allowances and gratuity lacked particulars and evidential support; the appointment letter did not provide for gratuity. Aggravated and punitive damages were unjustified. The certificate of service is a statutory entitlement and the only relief granted.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who squanders the opportunity to respond to a show cause letter is barred from complaining in court that she was not heard before termination.
- On a first appeal the court re-evaluates the evidence and draws its own conclusions, while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs save for the award of a certificate of service.
- 2.The respondent is to issue a certificate of service to the appellant forthwith.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (Employment and Labour Relations jurisdiction)
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court (Employment Act claims appealed from the magistrates' court)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the termination was unfair and unlawful; compensation for unfair termination; two months' salary in lieu of notice
The court found a valid reason for termination and that fair procedure was followed
Salary underpayment, house allowance, medical allowances, leave allowances
Lack of particulars and supporting evidence
Service gratuity
The appointment letter did not provide for gratuity and the claim lacked particulars and evidence
Aggravated and punitive damages
Not justified by evidence
One-month salary in lieu of notice
Entitled per the termination letter but the appeal was otherwise dismissed; only the certificate of service was ordered
Costs
The appeal is dismissed with costs (to the respondent), save for the award of a certificate of service which ought to be issued to the appellant forthwith.
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 my view that an employee who squanders an opportunity afiorded to defend herself against allegations at work place, is barred from raising the matter in court.
Consequently, the appeal fails to the extent highlighted above and it is dismissed with costs save for the award of a certificate of service which ought to be issued to her forthwith.
The prayer for certificate of service is granted since it is provided for under section 51 of the Employment Act. This is the only issue where the trial court erred.
This being a first appeal, my mandate is to re-evaluate the evidence on record and make my own independent conclusions.
Issues in the judgment
#Year discrepancy in the dates of the show cause and termination letters - the record shows 2019 but the respondent's submissions state 2024
Employment duration inconsistency - the appellant was employed from 2001 and served 18 years, yet prayed for compensation equivalent to twelve years' salary
The termination letter references a BOM meeting held on 1st November 2018, which predates the 17th October 2019 meeting it purports to follow
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiarie v Board of Management Nguku Secondary School (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 795 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Memorandum of Appeal dated 20th June 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/795/eng@2025-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.