Obondo v Izwe Loans Limited (Cause E901 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1487 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld a dismissal where the employer followed fair procedure and proved valid misconduct grounds, so the employee's claim failed with 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 Claimant was unfairly dismissed
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the dismissal under Section 41 of the Employment Act
The dismissal was procedurally fair; the Claimant was issued a show cause letter, responded to it, was invited to a disciplinary hearing with rights of representation, cross-examination and to present evidence, and was informed of his right of appeal which he exercised
The court traced the chronology: show cause letter dated 29th April 2021 itemising four charges, the Claimant's written response of 3rd May 2021, an invitation to the hearing of 13th May 2021 notifying him of his rights to representation, to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence, the hearing and verdict, and the appeal. Applying the Postal Corporation minimum standards, all elements of a fair hearing were met, so Section 41 was satisfied.
Substantive fairness and validity of the reasons for dismissal under Section 45
The Respondent had valid, fair and justified grounds to dismiss the Claimant for gross misconduct - receiving allowances for marketing trips he did not make
The Claimant admitted in his response to the show cause letter and in cross-examination that there were days he did not travel for marketing despite being facilitated, and he lacked any communication informing the Respondent of reasons for not travelling. He also sought forgiveness and leniency in his appeal. Applying Section 45 and the Isindu burden on the employer, the Respondent proved valid and fair reasons related to the Claimant's conduct.
Whether the appeal process breached natural justice because members of the disciplinary panel sat on the appeal
Rejected; the Respondent's evidence was that the Managing Director and joint MD sat on the appeal panel and did not sit in the disciplinary hearing
RW1 clarified on re-examination that Sarah Teko did not sit in the appeal but only communicated the verdict by email, and that the appeal panel members had not sat in the disciplinary hearing. The Claimant's allegation of sitting on one's own cause was therefore not established.
Legal principles established
#- A dismissal is fair and lawful where the employer adheres to Sections 41, 43, 45 and 47(5) of the Employment Act, 2007
- Serving a show cause letter, inviting the employee to an oral hearing, and allowing representation, witnesses and production of documents constitutes fair procedure under Section 41
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's suit is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded 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, 2007 (first-instance employment claim)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed
The court found the dismissal both procedurally and substantively fair
Reinstatement without loss of benefits
Dismissal found fair; the relief would only hold if the dismissal was unfair
12 months' salary as compensation for unfair dismissal (Kshs. 2,121,816)
No unfair dismissal established
Interest
Claim dismissed in its entirety
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded 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.
From the foregone chronology of events, there is no doubt in my mind that the Respondent accorded the Claimant fair process in accordance with Section 41 of the Employment Act.
I thus hold that the Respondent had valid, fair and justified grounds to dismiss the Claimant. The Claimant’s dismissal is thus held both procedurally and substantively fair.
The reliefs sought herein, would only hold if the dismissal was found to be unfair. With the finding that the Claimant was fairly dismissed, all the prayers herein must fail, and are all dismissed.
In the final analysis, the Claimant’s suit is dismissed in its entirety with costs to the Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the date of the Memorandum of Reply, stated as dated 16th December, 2022 although the claim was filed in 2021 and reply ordinarily expected in 2021
Inconsistent rendering of the street name in the tracking evidence - 'Lunga Road' versus 'Lunga Lunga Road'
Case number and cause title are not set out in the judgment extract provided
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Obondo v Izwe Loans Limited (Cause E901 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1487 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1487/eng@2025-05-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.