Mbugua v Kenya Power and Lighting Co. Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1060 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1520 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court upheld an employee's dismissal over missing lanterns, but ruled the employer's counterclaim also failed for lack of proof.
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 dismissed the Claimant from employment for valid reason following a fair procedure.
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
- 3.Whether the Respondent proved its counter claim for the car loan balance and unremitted employee sales.
Key legal issues
#Validity of the reason for dismissal
The Respondent proved on a balance of probability that the Claimant participated in a fraudulent street lantern requisition causing loss of 30 lanterns
The Claimant, as supervisor in street lighting, requisitioned the lanterns and sent Robert Njenga, a driver from a different department who was on leave, to collect them. The lanterns left the store but were never delivered to the site. The court found the Respondent's evidence credible and unrebutted, satisfying the Section 43 burden on a balance of probability.
Fairness of the dismissal procedure
The procedure was fair; the Claimant responded to a show-cause notice, attended a disciplinary hearing and gave his explanation
The Claimant received a notice to show cause dated 6/7/2017, responded on 11/7/2017, attended a disciplinary hearing on 27/7/2017 where he explained himself, and only later received the dismissal letter. The court found the dismissal lawful and fair and dismissed the claim.
Respondent's counter claim
The counter claim failed for want of proof
The Cooperative Bank had written a letter dated 22/1/2019 indicating the car loan had been fully paid, and RW1 did not substantiate the claim for unremitted sales proceeds of Kshs. 13,773.06. Under Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act the burden lay on the Respondent, which it did not discharge.
Legal principles established
#- Under Section 43(1) and (2) of the Employment Act, 2007, the employer bears the burden of proving a valid reason for dismissal, on a balance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt
- An employer need only show reasonable grounds to link an employee to misconduct; conclusive proof is not required
- A party asserting a fact bears the burden of proof under Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act
Court orders
#- 1.The suit by the Claimant is dismissed for want of merit.
- 2.The Respondent's counter claim in the sum of Kshs. 1,033,043.11 is dismissed in its entirety for lack of merit.
- 3.Each party to meet their 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 under the Employment Act, 2007 (Section 43 and Section 49 relied on in the determination)
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination was unlawful, unjustified, unfair and unprocedural
The Respondent proved a valid reason for dismissal on a balance of probability following a fair procedure
Damages equivalent to one month salary, notice pay, 19 unutilised leave days and one year's salary under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act
Dismissal was justified; no entitlement to the reliefs sought
General damages for violation of constitutional rights
No violation established; suit dismissed
Respondent's counter claim for car loan balance and employee sales
Respondent failed to prove the car loan remained unpaid and did not substantiate the sales claim
Costs
Each party to meet their 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.
The court is satisfied that the Respondent justified the dismissal of the Claimant from employment for participating in a fraudulent street lantern requisition.CW1 did not rebut that credible evidence by the Respondent.
The standard of proof is on a balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt and all the employer is required to prove are the reasons that it “genuinely believed to exist,” causing it to terminate the employee’s services.
In the present matter the Respondent had reasonable and sufficient grounds to prove on a balance of probability that the Claimant had participated in improper procurement of street lanterns to the significant loss and detriment of the Respondent.
Accordingly, the Respondent failed to adduce any or any sufficient evidence to prove the counter claim in the sum of Kshs. 1,033,043.11. The said counter claim is dismissed in its entirety for lack of merit.
In the final analysis the suit by the Claimant and the counter claim by the Respondent are dismissed.
Each party to meet their costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Claimant's criminal acquittal is noted in evidence but the judgment does not expressly address its bearing on the dismissal finding
RW1 conceded key records (automated system documentation and requisition) were not produced in court, yet the court found the Respondent's evidence credible
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbugua v Kenya Power and Lighting Co. Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1060 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1520 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1520/eng@2025-05-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.