Naomi Mwihaki Wangui v Platinum Outsourcing and Logistics E.A. Ltd (Cause 187 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1570 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employer unfairly fired a worker because it couldn't prove she caused a loss, awarding her Kshs 120,000 plus costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the termination
The Respondent substantially complied with procedural fairness; the 48-hour show cause period and hearing were adequate as the Claimant responded without complaining and the minutes showed no protest
The show cause notice set out the allegations, and the Claimant responded within two days without indicating the time was insufficient. The disciplinary hearing minutes did not record her lamenting the time allowed or requiring further information. The court therefore found substantial compliance with sections 35(1) and 41 of the Employment Act.
Substantive fairness of the termination
The termination was substantively unfair because the loss of 620 barrels occurred while the Claimant was away at a training facilitated by the Respondent, and the investigation report was not produced or its authors called
The employer bears the burden under sections 43 and 45 to prove valid and fair reasons. The Project Manager admitted the Claimant was away when the loss occurred. The investigation report relied on was not produced in court and the investigators were not called to testify, so the reason for termination was not proved.
Quantum of compensation
Equivalent of 2 months' gross salary (Kshs 60,000/-) awarded, considering the Claimant's slightly over one year of service
In exercising discretion on compensation under section 49, the court considered the length of service, which was slightly over one year, and fixed the equivalent of two months' gross salary at Kshs 30,000/- per month as appropriate compensation.
Breach of contract - unpaid May 2017 salary
Claim allowed because the Respondent, as custodian of employee records, did not rebut the assertion that May 2017 salary was unpaid
The Claimant asserted non-payment of May 2017 salary of Kshs 30,000/-. The Respondent, being the custodian of employee records, produced no evidence rebutting the assertion, so the court accepted the claim and allowed that head.
Salary for supervisory duties
Relief declined for want of corroboration of the alleged promise to pay an additional Kshs 30,000/- monthly
Apart from the Claimant's oral testimony, there was no corroborating material establishing that the Respondent promised payment for supervisory duties or that any such promise would be legally enforceable. The claim of Kshs 195,000/- was therefore declined.
Legal principles established
#- Sections 35(1) and 41 of the Employment Act, 2007 set out the bare minimums of procedural fairness in termination
- Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007 obligate the employer to prove the validity and fairness of the reasons for terminating an employment contract
- An employer relying on an investigation report must produce it and call its makers to testify; failure to do so undermines proof of reasons for termination
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the Respondent unfairly terminated the Claimant's employment and was in breach of contract
- 2.Award of compensation of Kshs 60,000/- (equivalent of 2 months' gross salary)
- 3.Award of pay in lieu of notice of Kshs 30,000/-
- 4.Award of May 2017 salary of Kshs 30,000/-
- 5.Total award of Kshs 120,000/- to attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 6.Claimant to have costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (first-instance employment claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Naomi Mwihaki Wangui v Platinum Outsourcing and Logistics E.A. Ltd (Cause 187 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1570 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1570/eng@2025-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.