Muriithi v Sabic Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 921 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1434 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded an employee over KShs 1.7 million because the employer terminated her unfairly and ignored its own HR rules.
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 had valid reasons to terminate the Claimant's employment on grounds of poor performance
- 2.Whether the proper procedure under the Respondent's policies and the Employment Act was followed in terminating the Claimant
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Statement of Claim
- 4.Whether the Respondent is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Counter-claim
Key legal issues
#Validity of the reason for termination (poor performance)
No valid reason was established; the performance evaluation was done after termination, the complainant withdrew her complaint, and the Claimant was not a signatory to the accounts for late statutory remittances
The court found the 2017 evaluation relied on was done in September 2018, after the May 2018 termination. RW1 admitted the Claimant was not a signatory to the Respondent's account so late NSSF/NHIF payments were attributed to the signatory. RW2 confirmed she apologised for an erroneous complaint. Accordingly the alleged grounds did not genuinely exist.
Procedural fairness of the termination
The termination was procedurally unfair because the Respondent breached its own HR Manual, which required timelines including three warning letters before a disciplinary hearing, contrary to Section 41
Although a disciplinary hearing was held and evidence was called, the Respondent failed to follow the timelines and warning procedure set out in its own manual. The court held this breached Section 41 of the Employment Act on proper hearing procedures.
The Respondent's counter-claim for unreturned company property and negligence
The counter-claim failed because the Respondent did not prove it issued the listed property to the Claimant
The Claimant denied retaining company property and the Respondent adduced no proof that the sim card, login credentials, software access, service contract and fuel card had been issued to him. In the absence of such proof the counter-claim could not succeed.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must prove both a valid and fair reason and a fair procedure for termination to be fair under Section 45(2) of the Employment Act
- Before terminating for poor performance an employer must explain the reasons and hear the employee's representations under Section 41
- An employer is bound by its own internal HR manual, including timelines and warnings prescribed therein
- A party who alleges an employee departed with company property bears the burden of proving the property was issued to the employee
Court orders
#- 1.1 month pay in lieu of notice of Kshs. 155,356
- 2.Compensation equivalent to 10 months' salary (Kshs. 1,553,560) for the unlawful termination, subject to statutory deductions, total Kshs. 1,708,916
- 3.Respondents to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution / Employment Act 2007 (court established to hear employment disputes; jurisdiction not expressly cited in the extract)
Relief refused
#Reinstatement with accruing benefits (and general damages in the alternative)
The court instead awarded pay in lieu of notice and compensation under Section 49; reinstatement was not granted
Severance pay for years worked
CW1 testified the employment contract did not provide for severance pay
The Respondent's counter-claim (damages for breach of contract, mandatory injunction for return of property, general damages for negligence, indemnification)
The Respondent failed to prove it issued the claimed property to the Claimant or that he retained it
Costs
The Respondents will pay cost of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment.
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.
Given that the Claimant failed to prove existence of valid reason to warrant Claimant’s termination and also failed to follow due process, I find the termination of the Claimant was unfair and unjustified.
prior to the disciplinary hearing, the Respondents failed to adhere to their own manual which provides timelines to be adopted including 3 warnings before any disciplinary hearing.
The Respondents will pay cost of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgment.
I also award her compensation equivalent to 10 months salary for the unlawful termination given the failure of the Respondents to adhere to their rules and terminating the Claimant unfairly;
The counterclaim must therefore fail.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the Claimant inconsistently by gender in the disposition
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muriithi v Sabic Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 921 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1434 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided (Statement of Claim dated 8th June 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1434/eng@2025-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.