Karume v Tana Water Works Development Agency (Cause E031 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1412 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An employee who used fake certificates to get and keep his job lost his unfair termination case completely and was ordered to pay the employer's legal costs.
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 termination of the claimant's employment by the respondent was unfair and unlawful.
- 2.Whether reliefs sought are merited.
Key legal issues
#Whether the reason for termination was valid
Valid reason existed - the claimant used fake KCSE and Diploma certificates to secure employment and promotion; he admitted the KCSE offence and did not deny the Diploma charges
The issuing institutions (Kenya Institute of Security and Criminal Justice, Kenyatta University and KNEC) disowned the certificates, and this evidence was unrebutted. The claimant failed to produce any alternative certificates to support his denial, and in his response to the show cause letter he sought one year to regularize his KCSE certificate, amounting to an admission. His silence on the Diploma charges meant he had no defence.
Whether fair procedure was followed
Fair procedure was followed; the claimant was given a show cause letter and invited to a disciplinary hearing which he ignored, then tendered a backdated resignation to evade the process
The claimant was served with a show cause letter setting out charges, responded within a week, and was invited to a disciplinary hearing. Although there was doubt about actual service of the hearing summons, following the Court of Appeal's approach in Kenya Ports Authority v Fadhil Juma Kisuwa, the claimant was accorded a fair opportunity to defend himself; he admitted one offence and ignored the others, then served a resignation notice.
Whether the termination was unfair under section 45 of the Employment Act
Termination was fair and lawful within the meaning of section 45
Both limbs of section 45 - valid reason and fair procedure - were satisfied. The employer proved the reason for termination was valid, related to the employee's conduct (falsification of records and misleading the Agency), and that the employment was terminated in accordance with fair procedure.
Entitlement to the reliefs claimed
All reliefs declined - compensation and notice pay under section 49 not available; salary arrears and certificate of service refused on ex turpi causa grounds
Since the termination was fair and lawful, the statutory reliefs for unfair termination were not available. The remaining claims for October and November 2023 salary and a certificate of service were founded on the claimant's own illegality in using fake certificates, and the court cannot lend its aid to a transgressor benefiting from his own illegality.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employee admits an offence charged in a show cause letter or fails to specifically deny or respond to it, the employer is entitled to make an adverse conclusion and separate from the employee.
- Courts will not lend aid to a transgressor seeking to benefit from his own illegality (ex turpi causa).
Court orders
#- 1.The suit was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
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 (first-instance statement of claim; no constitutional/statutory jurisdictional provision expressly invoked)
Relief refused
#12 months' compensation for unfair termination (Kshs.1,188,480/-)
Termination was found fair and lawful; claimant not entitled to compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act
One month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs.99,040/-)
Termination was for valid reason and fair procedure; no entitlement under section 49
Salary for October and November 2023 (Kshs.198,080/-)
Claim founded on ex turpi causa - claimant sought to benefit from his own illegality (fake certificates)
Certificate of service
Refused on ex turpi causa grounds
Costs
Suit 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.
Having said that, I find no merits in the suit and dismiss it with costs to the respondent.
I must hold that the respondent had a valid reason for dismissing the claimant from service.
I hold that the claimant was accorded a fair opportunity to defend himself and he admitted one ofience and further ignored the other charges.
I hold that the termination was fair and lawful within the meaning of section 45 of the Employment Act.
the court has no right to lend its aid to a transgressor who seeks to benefit from his own illegality.
I find that where in this case, an employee admits an ofience as charged in a show cause letter or fails to specifically deny or ofier a response, the employer is entitled to make an adverse conclusion against the employee and proceed to separate from the employee.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment internally records contradictory dates on the notice of hearing and resignation, and the resignation letter's stated last working day is an impossible date (31st November 2023).
The termination letter cites the Public Officer Ethics Act inconsistently, and the judgment itself flags the error.
The judgment states there was 'evidence that the claimant was ever served with the summons for the hearing' in a passage which, read literally, denies such evidence, though the surrounding reasoning treats service as unresolved.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karume v Tana Water Works Development Agency (Cause E031 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1412 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (statement of claim dated 1st August 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1412/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.