Sikuku v Kenya National Trading Corporation (KNTC) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E203 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2014 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled you cannot dismiss an employee on grounds never listed in their show cause letter, awarding damages for the unfair process.
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 petitioner's dismissal
- 2.Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were infringed upon by respondents
- 3.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Validity of dismissal on grounds not in the show cause letter
The dismissal was unfair because the petitioner was served with three charges but found culpable of ten grounds that were never presented to him for a response
The show cause letter dated 23 January 2024 set out three allegations. The summary dismissal letter of 6 March 2024 found the petitioner culpable of ten charges, seven of which could not be traced to the original notice. Following the precedent in Evans Nyangwano Monda v Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd, introducing new allegations after the hearing violates fair hearing and section 41 of the Employment Act, breaching Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution.
Infringement of constitutional rights
The petitioner was subjected to an unfair disciplinary process and his constitutional rights under Articles 41, 47 and 50 were infringed
Article 41 guarantees fair labour rights including fair hearing; Article 50(1) guarantees a fair hearing before an independent body; Article 50(2)(b) requires that a person be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it. Finding the petitioner culpable of uncharged grounds breached these guarantees.
Jurisdiction/exhaustion of internal remedies
The court entertained the petition notwithstanding failure to appeal to the Public Service Commission, the grievance being the legality and constitutionality of the dismissal
The petitioner argued that exhaustion is subject to exceptions and that a challenge to the legality of the entire action does not fall within PSC's jurisdiction, relying on NASA and Khaemba. The court did not dismiss the petition on exhaustion grounds and proceeded to determine it on the merits.
Legal principles established
#- Introduction of new allegations or reasons for dismissal at the disciplinary hearing or in the dismissal letter after the hearing amounts to violation of fair hearing and fair labour practices under section 41 of the Employment Act
- Where minutes of a disciplinary hearing are not produced, an employee cannot be assumed to have been put to task over charges beyond those in the show cause letter
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the respondents subjected the petitioner to a flawed disciplinary process as per articles 41, 47 and 50 of the constitution
- 2.A declaration that by introducing and dismissing the petitioner on ten grounds of gross misconduct outside the three charges cited in his show cause letter, the respondent violated the petitioner's right to fair labour practices, fair administrative action and fair hearing under articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution
- 3.An order directing the respondents to pay the petitioner 3 million as damages for violating his constitutional rights
- 4.An order directing the respondents to pay the petitioner all and any salary and benefits withheld as a result of the unlawful and unfair termination of his employment
- 5.The respondents to pay costs of this suit plus interest 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
- Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution; Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and constitutional rights disputes
Relief refused
#Reinstatement without loss of job rank, salary and remuneration
Reinstatement was not among the orders granted by the court in the disposition; only declarations, damages, withheld salary and costs were ordered
Nullification of termination as null and void ab initio
The court granted declarations of flawed process rather than a declaration that the termination was null and void ab initio
Costs
The respondents to pay costs of this 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.
Having found as above, I return the verdict for the petitioner as follows:
An order directing the respondents to pay the petitioner 3 million as damages for violating his constitutional rights.
The respondents to pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgement.
In the letter of summary dismissal however, the petitioner is found culpable on 10 charges which were originally never presented to him.
introduction of new allegations or reason for dismissal at the disciplinary hearing or in the dismissal letter after the hearing amounts to violation of fair hearing.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment appears to misidentify the petitioner's claim regarding parties elsewhere in related proceedings, referring to 'the Respondent and other Petitioners' in Nairobi ELRC Petition No. E059 of 2024
Reinstatement (mandamus) sought in the petition is not expressly addressed or refused in the disposition
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sikuku v Kenya National Trading Corporation (KNTC) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E203 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2014 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 5th December 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2014/eng@2025-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.