Oliech v Komaza Forestry Limited (Cause E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1991 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld a sales manager's summary dismissal because he failed to supervise his team, but confirmed honest product feedback can't justify dismissal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was an unfair termination of employment
- 2.Whether remedies should be issued
Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was substantively justified
The summary dismissal was justified on the grounds of failure to supervise and provide adequate support to the sales officer at Gikomba, leading to sale of timber below the instructed price
The claimant's core contractual duties were supervising the sales team (80%) and creating sales plans and strategies (20%). Despite the pricing directive of 15 August 2022, timber was sold at Ksh. 31 instead of Ksh. 50. The claimant, as team leader, bore responsibility for inadequate supervision of Emmanuel and could not hide behind the sales officers' separate job descriptions.
Whether the claimant was accorded due process before dismissal
The claimant received due process: he was issued a show cause notice, responded in writing, attended a disciplinary hearing with a colleague of his choice, and made representations which were considered
The respondent issued a show cause notice on 26 August 2022, received the claimant's written response on 30 August 2022, invited him to a disciplinary hearing scheduled for 9 September 2022 at which he could bring another employee, and considered his representations before the summary dismissal. The claimant also had a right of appeal which he did not exercise.
Whether the allegation of unprofessional utterances about product quality justified dismissal
This ground could not justify summary dismissal, as the claimant's remarks about product quality amounted to legitimate feedback to the employer
As sales manager, the claimant had a duty to provide feedback to the respondent. Stating that products in the market were of poor quality constituted such feedback. The court held that treating this as unprofessional and using it as a basis for summary dismissal was subjective and amounted to a refusal to consider alternative views.
Whether remedies should issue
No remedies issue; the claim for compensation does not arise where summary dismissal is justified and terminal dues including earned bonuses were paid
The claimant received his final dues including salary up to 19 September 2022, accrued leave days, and the accrued quarterly bonus of Ksh. 135,882.35 paid on 14 October 2022. Since the summary dismissal was justified, no compensation for unfair termination could be awarded.
Legal principles established
#- An employer may summarily dismiss an employee who breaches a fundamental condition of the employment contract, such as failing to take proper instructions from the employer, after according the employee an opportunity to be heard under Section 41(2) of the Employment Act
- A team leader/supervisor cannot decline responsibility for failures of the sales officers under his supervision; the overall job description of the team leader is to ensure adequate supervision of subordinates
- Where an employee gives genuine feedback to the employer about product quality, labelling that feedback unprofessional and using it as a ground for summary dismissal is subjective and a refusal to consider alternative views
- No compensation for unfair termination arises where summary dismissal is justified and terminal dues, including accrued bonuses, were paid
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed
- 2.Each party is to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment and labour relations claim under the Employment Act (Sections 41 and 44 engaged); no specific constitutional provision cited
Relief refused
#Damages for unlawful termination of employment equivalent to 12 months' salary (Ksh. 2,700,000)
The court found the summary dismissal was justified for failure to supervise and support the sales officer at Gikomba, and due process was followed; compensation does not arise where summary dismissal is justified
Costs of the suit
Each party ordered to bear its own costs
Costs
Each party is to bear its 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.
Accordingly, the claim is without merit and is dismissed. Each party is to bear its costs.
The court finds the grounds for summary dismissal were justified. The claimant received his final dues, including earned bonuses for the sales made. The claim for compensation does not arise when summary dismissal is deemed justified.
Under Section 44 of the Employment Act, an employer is permitted to terminate employment by summary dismissal if the employee breaches a fundamental condition of the employment contract, such as failing to take proper instructions from the employer.
As the team leader, the overall job description for the claimant was to ensure the sales oficers had adequate supervision, which was lacking when he sold timber at Ksh 31 instead of the recommended price of Ksh. 50.
The claimant was given due process, allowed to urge his case, and called Emmanuel as his witness. The responses were taken into consideration, leading to termination of employment by summary dismissal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains internally inconsistent dates for the summary dismissal notice: it variously states the dismissal was by notice dated 16 September 2022 and by notice dated 19 September 2022, while stating the claimant worked until 16 September 2022 and was paid salary up to 19 September 2022
The supervisor's name is inconsistently spelt as 'Esther Muthama' and 'Esther Mutuma' within the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Oliech v Komaza Forestry Limited (Cause E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1991 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1991/eng@2025-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.