Awimbo v Kenya Hospital Association t/a The Nairobi Hospital (Cause E395 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1967 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld a doctor's summary dismissal, ruling that a plausible reason plus a fair process is enough for employers to win.
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 had a valid and justifiable reason to summarily dismiss the claimant
- 2.Whether the termination was carried out through a fair procedure in accordance with the Employment Act
- 3.If the termination was unfair, what remedies would be appropriate
Key legal issues
#Validity of the reason for summary dismissal
Valid reasons existed: the claimant's failure to document patient AN in the system and a prior final warning for improper documentation
The claimant did not deny the failure to document patient attendance, nor the prior warning letter issued on 21st November 2018 for writing a medical report on a patient he had not seen, which was stated to be the last warning. These infractions, with the potential revenue and credibility exposure to a private hospital, constituted valid and justifiable grounds for disciplinary action, and dismissal was proportionate.
Fairness of the disciplinary procedure
The procedure under section 41 was fair: show cause, response, hearing notice with right to be accompanied, hearing attended unaccompanied, dismissal with appeal, and appeal determined
The claimant was issued a show cause letter and responded; he was suspended and invited to a hearing with the right to bring a colleague of his choice, attended unaccompanied and defended himself; he was dismissed with a right of appeal which he exercised and which was considered and rejected. He never asked for more time or documents, faced a single familiar charge, and admitted his fault.
Appropriate remedies
None, as the claim failed
Having found valid reasons and a fair procedure, the court declined to grant reinstatement or the alternative twelve months' compensation, dismissing the entire claim with costs to the respondent.
Legal principles established
#- The reason for termination is within the employer's discretion and the court will not undertake a rigorous merit review; a plausible reason suffices unless tainted by malice, discrimination or procedural unfairness
- Where an employee neither sought additional time nor documents to respond to allegations, the court cannot find the time given was insufficient
Court orders
#- 1.The claimant's suit is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit are 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 over a summary dismissal claim under the Employment Act, 2007
Relief refused
#Declaration that the claimant's termination was unlawful
The court found valid reasons for dismissal and a fair procedure
Reinstatement with full benefits
Claim dismissed; also counsel for respondent noted three years had elapsed making reinstatement impracticable
Damages of twelve months' gross pay (Kshs. 3,129,600) in the alternative
Claim dismissed; the court declined to interfere with the employer's decision to dismiss
Costs
The claim is dismissed with costs 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.
The correct test is: Was it reasonable for the employers to dismiss him? If no reasonable employer would have dismissed him, then the dismissal was unfair, but if a reasonable employer might reasonably have dismissed him, the dismissal was fair.
Provided the reason is plausible, the Court would be reluctant to interfere unless it is clearly demonstrated that the reason was tainted with other considerations which amount to unfair labour practice such as malice, discrimination or gross violation of procedural fairness.
In conclusion the Court finds and holds that the claim is without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the show cause letter was issued on '2nd May, 2025' which appears to be a typographical error for 2019 given the surrounding chronology
The claimant's own submissions record the sick-off period as 'running between 14th and 16th April, 2016' which appears to be a typographical error for 2019
The claimant's and respondent's names are not stated in the judgment text provided
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Awimbo v Kenya Hospital Association t/a The Nairobi Hospital (Cause E395 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1967 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause E395 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1967/eng@2025-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.