Methu v Judicial Service Commission (Cause E813 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1420 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cut an employee's compensation to one month's salary because, even though the dismissal process was flawed, his job application contained false qualifications.
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 was unfairly dismissed
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the dismissal
The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the Claimant was not informed of his right to be accompanied by a representative at the disciplinary hearing
The court applied Section 41 of the Employment Act and the four minimum standards of fair procedure set out in Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui. Although the Claimant received a show cause letter, responded in detail, and attended the disciplinary hearing on 18th July 2018, the minutes did not show that he was informed to appear with a representative, and he did not appear with one. That single defect rendered the procedure unfair.
Substantive justification for the dismissal
The dismissal was substantively fair; the Claimant provided false information about his academic qualifications to secure employment
Under Section 43 the employer must prove the reasons for termination. The Respondent verified with accreditation bodies that Nairobi Aviation College was only approved to train KNEC courses on 24th June 2016, yet the Claimant's diploma certificate was dated 17th November 2012. The Claimant admitted on cross-examination that his CV contained erroneous information and that he did not complete the Zetech diploma. He did not rebut this evidence, so the dismissal was substantively justified.
Entitlement to remedies
Only one month's salary as compensation was warranted; the claim for unpaid salary during suspension failed for lack of proof
Given that the dismissal was unfair only on procedure and the Claimant had made a detailed written response to the show cause letter and physically attended the hearing, the court deemed one month's salary sufficient compensation. The claim for unpaid salary between 10th May 2018 and 10th May 2021 failed because no evidence was led to prove entitlement, the suspension having been without pay.
Legal principles established
#- A dismissal may be procedurally unfair where the employee was neither informed of the right to attend the disciplinary hearing with a representative nor appeared with one
- Substantive justification exists where the employer genuinely believed, on a reasonable basis, in the matters informing the termination at the time of the decision
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent pays the Claimant one month salary for the unfair dismissal at Kshs. 112,143/-
- 2.Each party shall bear their own costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over a claim of unfair termination under the Employment Act, 2007 (Sections 41, 43, 45, 47 invoked)
Relief refused
#Unpaid salary for the period between 10th May 2018 and 10th May 2021
The Claimant led no evidence to prove entitlement to the pay; he was found guilty of the charges and the suspension was without pay
12 months' salary as compensation
Dismissal was unfair only on procedure; the Claimant had made a detailed written response and appeared at the hearing, so only one month's salary was awarded
Costs of the suit
The claim only partly succeeded; each party to bear own costs
Costs
Each party shall bear their own costs of the suit
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 will therefore in the circumstance fault the procedure on the sole ground that the Claimant was neither informed to attend the hearing with a representative, nor did he actually appear with one, and find the Claimant’ dismissal procedurally unfair
The reasons for the Claimant’s dismissal are in my view fair, valid and justified as the Claimant did not rebut the evidence led in support of the dismissal. I thus find the Claimant’s dismissal substantively fair
In whole, I find the Claimant’s dismissal unfair only on account of procedure
That the Respondent pays the Claimant one month salary for the unfair dismissal at Kshs. 112,143/-
The claim having partly succeeded, each party shall bear their own costs of the suit
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states the dismissal letter was communicated vide a letter dated 10th July 2020, yet also that the dismissal took effect from suspension on 10th May 2019 and that the appeal was filed on 20th September 2019 - dates are internally inconsistent
Show cause letter dated 13th February 2018 but the Claimant states he received it on 21st February 2018, and the claim seeks unpaid salary from 10th May 2018 while the Respondent says dismissal took effect from 10th May 2019
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Methu v Judicial Service Commission (Cause E813 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1420 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 28th September 2021, lodged 29th September 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1420/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.