Ombiri v Kenya Forest Service (Cause E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1813 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld an employee's dismissal as fair but also threw out the employer's Kshs 2.7 million counterclaim, leaving both sides with nothing but their own legal bills.
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's dismissal for alleged misappropriation of funds was lawful and procedurally fair
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to salary arrears, pension dues and terminal dues
- 3.Whether the Respondent's counterclaim for Kshs. 2,694,702.25 is proved
Key legal issues
#Fairness of the disciplinary process and dismissal
The dismissal was lawful and procedurally fair; the show-cause and hearing requirements were met and the termination is upheld
The Claimant received a show cause letter to which he responded, and was subsequently given a hearing before the disciplinary committee on 26th October 2022. The court found the process followed the dictates of the law and produced a fair result, notwithstanding the Claimant's complaints about non-availability of documents and witnesses, which the court did not treat as vitiating the termination.
The Respondent's counterclaim for Kshs. 2,694,702.25
The counterclaim fails; the claimed sum was unsupported and the Claimant was denied access to crucial documents
The Respondent asserted a balance of Kshs. 2,694,702.25 based on an alleged admission in a letter of 23rd January 2023 and deductions under the Public Finance Management Act. The court found the sum unsupported by evidence, the request for an account was not an admission, and the Claimant was denied the audit report and access to his office, hampering his defence.
Overall outcome of claim and counterclaim
Both the claim and the counterclaim are unproved and stand dismissed with no orders as to costs
Although the court upheld the termination, the Claimant's monetary reliefs were not granted and the Respondent's counterclaim was unsupported. The final disposition dismisses both the claim and the counterclaim, with each side bearing its own costs.
Legal principles established
#- A request by an employee to provide an account of funds is not an admission of liability
- A counterclaim sum that is unsupported by evidence cannot be ordered repaid
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's claim is dismissed
- 2.The Respondent's counterclaim is dismissed
- 3.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (matter disposed of by written submissions under Rule 59 of the Rules of this Court)
Relief refused
#Salary arrears of Kshs. 5,782,080/- (June 2021 to December 2023), pension dues and Kshs. 1,500,000/- terminal dues
The court upheld the dismissal as lawful; the disciplinary process was fair and pension dues had been paid
Respondent's counterclaim for Kshs. 2,694,702.25 plus interest
The sum was unsupported by evidence and the claimant was denied documents needed to defend himself
Costs
No orders as to costs - each party bears own costs
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 disciplinary process followed the dictates of the law and led to a fair result. It cannot be faulted save for an issue the Court will advert to shortly.
The termination was proper and within the confines and bounds of the law and the Court upholds it.
The Claimant’s request to provide an account was not an admission of liability, but only an opportunity to set the record straight.
In the final result, the Court finds both the Claimant’s claim and the Respondent’s suit by way of counterclaim are unproved. They are dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The court upholds the dismissal as fair yet simultaneously dismisses the claim, and the judgment suggests an unresolved issue it would 'advert to shortly' without expressly resolving it
Internal inconsistency in the Respondent's pleadings noted by the Claimant between embezzlement alleged in 2022 and counterclaim alleging 2019-2021
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ombiri v Kenya Forest Service (Cause E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1813 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 29th January 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1813/eng@2025-06-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.