Cool Collection Limited v Murimi (Appeal E099 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1393 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employer's dismissal of a worker was unfair because it couldn't prove the misconduct, then doubled the employee's compensation award.
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 trial court erred in finding that the Respondent's termination of employment was unfair and unlawful
- 2.Whether the trial court erred in awarding the Respondent the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent's summary dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair
The dismissal was unfair and unlawful both procedurally and substantively; the employer failed to discharge the statutory burden of proving the grounds for termination and failed to grant a fair hearing
The employer alleged late coming and absenteeism but, as custodian of employment records under section 74 of the Employment Act, produced no attendance sheets to prove the misconduct. Under sections 43 and 47(5), the employer must prove and justify the reasons for termination. Procedurally, section 41 requires notification and hearing; no notice to show cause was issued and no disciplinary hearing held. The warning letter issued three days after rescission of termination showed a predetermined intent to dismiss.
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial court's award of reliefs
The award of three months' salary as compensation was too low given the Respondent's approximately five years of service and the employer's scheme to avoid redundancy dues; it was increased to six months' salary
Applying the Mbogo v Shah principles on interference with judicial discretion, the court found sufficient grounds to disturb the compensation award: the Respondent had served around five years since July 2013 and the appellant devised a scheme to terminate him while avoiding declaring him redundant so as not to pay severance. The other awards (salary for days worked and notice pay) and the certificate of service order remained undisturbed.
Legal principles established
#- A fair hearing before termination need not be oral in all cases and may be achieved through correspondence, but a single warning letter that is neither signed for nor responded to does not amount to hearing by correspondence where no show cause letter was issued
- Section 47(5) of the Employment Act places the burden of proof on the employer to justify the reasons for termination, which must be fair under section 43
- An appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion on damages unless the judge misdirected himself or was clearly wrong, resulting in misjustice
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal is found without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- 2.The award of three months' salary as compensation for unfair termination is varied and substituted with an award of six months' salary
- 3.Other awards by the trial Court shall remain undisturbed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over appeals from the trial magistrate (employment dispute under the Employment Act)
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the trial magistrate's judgment
The court found no merit in the appeal; the trial court's findings on unfair and unlawful termination were affirmed
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs 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.
In conclusion, the Appeal is found without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent. This Court however for reasons stated above will vary the award of the trial Court as relates to compensation for unfair termination and substitute the award of three month's salary with an award of six months' salary as compensation for unfair termination of service. Other awards by the trial Court shall remain undisturbed.
The Appellant did not suficiently discharge this burden hence the trial Court erred in finding that the appellant had valid reasons to summarily dismiss the Respondent.
the warning letter was only one and not a final one to amount to hearing by correspondence since no show cause letter was given to the Respondent to give his side of story.
No attendance sheets were produced to show the late coming or absenteeism of the Respondent by the Appellant.
Issues in the judgment
#The court simultaneously states the trial court found the reasons for dismissal proved while it disagrees with that finding, creating internal tension in the narration of the trial court's holding
The judgment typographically describes the appellant as 'hell bend' to terminate the Respondent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cool Collection Limited v Murimi (Appeal E099 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1393 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Appeal dated 26th March 2024 (Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1393/eng@2025-05-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.