Odundo v Bidco Africa Limited (Cause E502 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 894 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court upheld Bidco Africa's dismissal of an employee found with company goods and no gate pass, confirming a fair disciplinary process defeats unfair termination claims.
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 Respondent's witnesses were competent to testify on behalf of the Respondent
- 2.Whether the Claimant had proved an unfair termination
- 3.What remedies lie
Key legal issues
#Competence of the Respondent's witnesses to testify without formal company resolutions or registration certificates
The witnesses were competent; the Kenya Commercial Bank v Stage Coach Management authority was irrelevant to an employment dispute
Mr. Mweu personally conducted the search at the gate and Mrs. Adika familiarised herself with the HR files of the dispute. The objection, raised only at submissions stage, could not stand. The court found KCB v Stage Coach Management Ltd, which concerned instituting suits on behalf of a company, inapplicable to employment litigation and held it irrelevant.
Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was substantively and procedurally unfair
The termination was fair; the Claimant failed to justify his possession of company products and was accorded due process
The Claimant was found with company cooking oil products without a gate pass, gave shifting explanations, and failed to produce supporting documents despite being given time. He was issued a show cause notice, responded, attended a disciplinary hearing with a colleague, and was heard. The court found the procedure and process could not be faulted under sections 41, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act.
Whether the Respondent's failure to hear the Claimant's appeal rendered the termination unfair
The Claimant's conduct in clearing and collecting terminal dues signalled abandonment of the appeal; termination remained fair
The Respondent deemed the appeal spent after the Claimant signed for terminal benefits. The court found no basis to fault the dismissal process, holding the Claimant was accorded a chance to defend himself and was heard. The failure of the appeal to be heard did not render the otherwise-fair process unfair.
Legal principles established
#- Submissions cannot take the place of evidence and new issues cannot be introduced at the submission stage
- An employer's employees may competently testify on its behalf in an employment dispute even where formal authority letters are not produced
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's suit is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction under the Employment Act
Relief refused
#Declaration that refusal to hear appeal contravened fair labour practices
Court found the disciplinary process fair and the suit not proved
12 months' salary compensation of Kshs. 1,092,000/- for unfair termination
Termination was substantively and procedurally fair; suit dismissed
Pay in lieu of notice
Terminal dues already received; no recovery available
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the Respondent
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.
I find and hold that decision is irrelevant and not applicable here.
the Claimant did not extricate himself from accusations of improper handling of company products which he attempted to steal and would have succeeded had the Respondent's security agents not been vigilant.
In terms of section 41, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act, the Claimant was accorded a chance to defend himself, was heard and when his explanation failed to exculpate him led to his termination.
His suit being untenable and not proved, it is accordingly dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Witnesses described in cross-examination as lacking filed authority, yet the court found them competent; the Claimant's witness was also referred to as '1st Respondent's witness' in the heading of his evidence
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odundo v Bidco Africa Limited (Cause E502 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 894 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause (Memorandum of Claim dated 14th July 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/894/eng@2025-03-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.