Kiriga v East African Maltings Ltd & another (Cause E676 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1649 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered an employer to pay about Kshs 8.3 million after failing to prove an employee falsified records or follow its own disciplinary policy.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.What was the Claimant's role as Operations Manager?
- 2.Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was wrongful, unfair and/or unlawful (substantive fairness)
- 3.Whether the termination followed a fair procedure (procedural fairness)
- 4.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the employer proved a valid reason for the termination
The reasons for dismissal were not valid; the allegations of intentional falsification were unfounded and the manual entries were explainable
The court found that the Claimant did fix figures manually but admitted doing so only where the formula could not apply, as corroborated by RW1, who confirmed variances persisted after the Claimant left and were attributable to spillage, rain exposure and moisture. The alleged loss figure included the Molo site which the Claimant did not manage. Section 43 places the burden of proving reasons on the employer, and the employer failed to show wilful alteration for a bad motive.
Whether the procedure followed was fair
Due process was not followed; the employer breached its own disciplinary policy by communicating the decision 3 weeks after the hearing instead of within 5 days
Although the Claimant was given an opportunity to be heard and called a witness at the disciplinary hearing, RW2 admitted that under clause 3.6.2 of the EABL Disciplinary Policy the employee was to be informed of the committee's decision within 5 days, yet the Claimant was informed 3 weeks later. The court held the Respondents failed to follow their own policy document, rendering the termination procedurally flawed under section 45(2) of the Employment Act.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to compensation and in what measure
The Claimant was entitled to compensation for unfair termination; 9 months' salary was awarded considering the unfounded gravity of the accusations, length of service and difficulty of finding alternative employment at his age
Having found both substantive and procedural unfairness, the court invoked its discretion under sections 49 and 50 of the Employment Act. It weighed the gravity of accusations which were unfounded, the Claimant's long service to the Respondents, and the difficulty of finding alternative employment at his age, and settled on 9 months' salary rather than the maximum 12 months.
Legal principles established
#- In any claim arising out of termination of a contract, the employer bears the burden of proving the reason or reasons for termination, failing which the termination is deemed unfair under section 45
- A termination is unfair where the employer fails to prove a valid and fair reason and that a fair procedure was followed
- Manual imputation of figures by an employee, where genuinely necessitated by the absence of readings and acknowledged practice, does not of itself constitute wilful misconduct warranting dismissal
Court orders
#- 1.Award of compensation for unfair termination of 9 months' salary: 9 x Kshs. 919,861.48 = Kshs. 8,278,753.32 less statutory deductions
- 2.The Respondents to pay the costs of the suit
- 3.Interest on the award 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
- Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act No. 20 of 2011 (raised by Respondents as to jurisdiction; claim determined as an employment cause)
Relief refused
#Three months' pay in lieu of notice (Kshs. 2,765,434.4)
Not expressly addressed in the judgment; the final award is limited to 9 months' compensation for unfair termination
Maximum compensation under Sections 49 and 50 of the Employment Act (Kshs. 11,061,737.76 per annum)
Court awarded only 9 months' salary instead of the maximum 12 months
Service pay of Kshs. 12,444,454.98
Not awarded in the final orders; the Respondents had argued the Claimant was a member of NSSF and the EABL Retirement Benefits Scheme, excluding him under Section 35(6) of the Employment Act, and the court did not disturb that position
Loss of income before retirement of Kshs. 77,432,1xx
Not awarded in the final orders; the Respondents relied on authority that no damages to the date of retirement are payable
Certificate of service
Not addressed in the final orders
Costs
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgement.
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.
Having found as above, I find for the claimant and I find that he is entitled to compensation for the unfairness meted against him.
From my analysis of the evidence above, it is therefore my findings that the dismissal of the claimant was not based on valid reasons and due process was not followed and so it was unfair and unjustified.
I award him 9 months salary as compensation = 9x Kshs 919,861.48= Kshs 8,278.753.32/- less statutory deductions.
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgement.
There is no provision for payment of damages to the date of retirement. This is because employment like any other contract provides for exit from the contract.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the termination letter is dated 1st February 2020, contradicting the parties' pleadings and evidence which repeatedly refer to a termination letter dated 18th February 2020
The court does not expressly dispose of the prayers for notice pay, service pay, loss of income before retirement or a certificate of service; only compensation and costs are addressed in the final orders
Arithmetic and typographical errors in the award: the monthly figure used (Kshs 919,861.48) differs from the pleaded basic salary (Kshs. 921,811.48), and the total is misprinted as Kshs 8,278.753.32
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiriga v East African Maltings Ltd & another (Cause E676 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1649 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1649/eng@2025-06-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.