Mutugi & another v Career Readiness Social Initiative Ltd (Cause 646 of 2019 & E525 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 2002 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded two former employees over Kshs 2 million because their employer fired them without completing investigations or holding fair hearings.
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 were valid reasons to warrant the claimants' dismissal
- 2.Whether the claimants were subjected to a proper disciplinary process
- 3.Whether the claimants are entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Whether there were valid reasons to warrant the claimants' dismissal
No valid reasons were established. The Respondent's own investigation report was dated 7 August 2019, after the 1st Claimant's disciplinary hearing of 26 July 2019, showing she was dismissed before investigations were completed, and no evidence was presented against her at the hearing.
The court examined the chronology: notice to show cause dated 25 July 2019, hearing on 26 July 2019, but the investigation report relied upon was dated 7 August 2019. The Respondent called no witnesses at the disciplinary hearing, and witnesses who later implicated the claimants never testified at the hearing. Minutes did not record any evidence adduced. Under section 43 of the Employment Act, the employer failed to prove the reasons for termination.
Whether the claimants were subjected to a proper disciplinary process
The process was improper. The 1st Claimant was given only 24 hours to respond and no evidence was presented at her hearing; the 2nd Claimant was never subjected to any disciplinary hearing at all.
Section 41 of the Employment Act requires that an employee be informed of the allegations, afforded an opportunity to respond, and heard. The 2nd Claimant received no show cause letter and no hearing. The 1st Claimant's hearing produced no recorded evidence and the Respondent called no witnesses. The 2nd Claimant's position that she resigned was rejected because no valid process preceded the events and the court found she was condemned unheard.
Whether the claimants are entitled to the remedies sought
Partly. Each claimant was awarded 8 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination plus one month's salary in lieu of notice, a certificate of service, and costs.
Having found the terminations lacked valid reasons and proper process, the court awarded compensation. It settled on 8 months' salary as adequate for claimants terminated without due process, rather than the 12 months claimed. It awarded one month rather than three months' notice pay and ordered issuance of certificates of service and costs.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must prove valid reasons for termination; failure to do so renders the termination unfair
- Termination is unfair where the employer fails to prove a valid and fair reason and that fair procedure was followed
- An employee condemned without any disciplinary hearing is unfairly terminated
Court orders
#- 1.Damages for unfair termination equivalent to 8 months' salary: Kshs 1,142,844 to the 1st Claimant and Kshs 774,992 to the 2nd Claimant
- 2.One month's salary in lieu of notice: Kshs 190,474 to the 1st Claimant and Kshs 96,874 to the 2nd Claimant
- 3.Total awards of Kshs 1,333,318 for the 1st Claimant and Kshs 871,866 for the 2nd Claimant, each less statutory deductions
- 4.The Respondent to issue each Claimant with a certificate of service
- 5.The Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 over claims of unfair and unlawful termination of employment
- Consolidated with
- ELRC Cause E525 of 2019
Relief refused
#12 months' gross salary / equivalent maximum compensation for unfair termination
The court found 8 months' salary adequate compensation given termination without due process
Three months' salary in lieu of notice (1st Claimant)
Only one month's salary in lieu of notice was awarded instead
Service pay (1st Claimant)
No finding in the judgment awarding service pay; the Respondent contended the 1st Claimant was a member of NSSF subject to statutory deductions
General and punitive damages and salary for the remainder of the 2nd Claimant's contract
Not awarded; the court limited remedies to compensation under its award for unfair termination
Costs
The Respondent will pay the costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment.
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 investigation report the respondents relied upon is dated 7/8/2019 but the disciplinary hearing was held on 26th July 2019. This indicates that the 1st claimant was heard and dismissed before investigations were done.
As concern the 2nd claimant she was never subjected to any disciplinary hearing and therefore was condemned unheard.
As concern the claimants, no valid reasons for termination were established and there was also no proper disciplinary hearing.
The respondents will issue each claimant with a certificate of service.
The respondents will pay cost of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the 1st Claimant's termination letter as dated 2/8/2018 whereas the pleadings state the letter was dated 2nd August 2019
Arithmetic error in the award for the 1st Claimant: 8 x Kshs 190,474 is stated as kshs 1,142,844, which does not correspond to the multiplication, and the stated total of Kshs 1,333,318 does not match the components
Witness designations are inconsistent: the 2nd Claimant and Nancy Jepkirong are both labelled CW2/RW2 interchangeably in the evidence section
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutugi & another v Career Readiness Social Initiative Ltd (Cause 646 of 2019 & E525 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 2002 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause No. 646 of 2019 (lead file, consolidated with ELRC Cause E525 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2002/eng@2025-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.