Aduo v New Kenya Cooperative Creameries Limited (Cause E021 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1218 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kericho court found a dismissal unfair because the employer gave no proper written notice of the disciplinary hearing and no proven reason, awarding Kshs. 452,000.
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's contract of employment was terminated on a fair procedure (Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act)
- 2.Whether termination was founded on valid reason (Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act)
- 3.Whether the Claimant merits the prayers sought
Key legal issues
#Fairness of disciplinary procedure
Procedure was flawed - improper and insufficient notice of the disciplinary hearing, no written invitation with charges, no advice of accompaniment rights, no minutes, and inconsistently amended dates on show-cause letters
The Claimant was called by phone one day before the initial hearing with no written invitation detailing charges, and received the appellate hearing invitation two days before that hearing. There were no minutes showing how evidence was recorded or findings made. Show-cause letter dates were amended inconsistently. This fell short of the procedural fairness required under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Validity of reasons for termination
Termination lacked valid reasons - the reconciliation charge was not objectively investigated, the amount owed was inconsistently stated, and the absconding and falsification charges were introduced mid-process and unproven
The transfer with immediate effect left the Claimant no time to reconcile accounts, the amounts alleged unaccounted for varied between figures, and the absconding and falsification charges arose during the ongoing disciplinary process without proper investigation. The conflicting hospital documents could not be relied upon as their authors were not called to testify. Sections 43 and 45 were therefore not satisfied.
Remedies for unfair termination
One month's notice pay and 3 months' salary compensation awarded; house allowance, leave, severance, public holidays and exemplary damages refused for want of evidence or merit; Certificate of Service to issue
The Claimant worked 1½ years and was not shown to have contributed to the termination; compensation was fixed at 3 months. He gave no adequate evidence on house allowance, leave, severance or public holiday pay, and there was no redundancy justifying severance. Exemplary damages were declined as the breach was adequately redressed compensatorily.
Legal principles established
#- Notice of a disciplinary hearing must be proper, adequate and in writing with details of the charges, and the employee must be advised of the right to be accompanied by a colleague or trade union representative
- Allegations of misconduct introduced in the course of a disciplinary process must be properly investigated and established
- Where an employee cannot be shown to have contributed to the termination and worked a short period, compensation under Section 49 is moderated
Court orders
#- 1.It is declared that termination was unfair
- 2.The Respondent shall pay the Claimant 1-month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 113,000 and compensation for unfair termination equivalent of 3 months' salary at Kshs. 339,000 - total Kshs. 452,000
- 3.Certificate of Service to issue
- 4.No order on the costs
- 5.Interest allowed at court rate, from the date of Judgment till payment is made 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 (Sections 41, 43 and 45 cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#12 months' salary compensation for unfair termination
Claimant worked only 1½ years; 3 months awarded instead
Severance pay at 15 days' salary per year
There was no redundancy
House allowance, outstanding leave and unpaid public holidays
No adequate evidence supplied
Exemplary damages for unfair labour practice
Respondent's conduct was a mere contractual breach adequately redressed by compensatory award
Costs
No order on the 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.
Procedure was fiawed, with improper and insuficient notice of the disciplinary hearing given to the Claimant.
Termination was unfair for want of valid reason[s], under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
It is declared that termination was unfair.
The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant, 1-month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 113,000 and compensation for unfair termination equivalent of 3 months' salary at Kshs. 339,000- total Kshs. 452,000.
No order on the costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the dates on the show-cause letters, acknowledged by the court itself
The judgment states the Claimant was dismissed on 15th June 2021 while the Respondent's pleading states his contract was terminated on 20th September 2021
Inconsistent figures for the amount allegedly unaccounted for
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Aduo v New Kenya Cooperative Creameries Limited (Cause E021 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1218 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as supplied. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1218/eng@2025-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.