John v African Gas and Oil Limited (Cause E087 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2023 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that firing an employee for a reason never raised in his disciplinary hearing was unfair, awarding him pay and costs.
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 summary dismissal against the Claimant was fair.
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was procedurally fair
The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the disciplinary committee deliberated on matters unrelated to the charge in the show cause letter, the Claimant's witness was not heard, and outside persons influenced the decision without hearing the Claimant.
The court found the Respondent began well by issuing a show cause letter dated 22nd July 2022 and inviting the Claimant to a hearing. However, the minutes showed the discussion was about poor work ethics rather than the charge of attempting to defraud KES 104,400. The Claimant's witness was not heard before deliberations, and external 'consultations' influenced the dismissal without hearing the Claimant. This negated natural justice and fair hearing rights.
Whether the summary dismissal was substantively fair
The dismissal was not substantively fair because the reason given in the dismissal letter (attempt to defraud) was not established through the disciplinary process and differed from the grounds that emerged at the hearing.
The minutes, witness statements and dismissal letter showed the charge in the show cause letter (attempting to defraud) was not the basis of the dismissal as set out in the dismissal letter. Under Section 45, a valid reason must flow from the disciplinary events (suspension, investigations, show cause letter, hearing invitation), and the court found the dismissal lacked substantive justification.
What reliefs flow from the unfair dismissal
The Claimant received a declaration, three months' gross salary compensation under Section 49(1)(c), one month's notice pay under Section 36, interest and costs; other reliefs were declined.
The court exercised its Section 49(1)(c) discretion considering the manner of termination, length of service and re-employment elsewhere, awarding three months' gross salary. Notice pay followed under Section 36 because the employment was terminable on 28 days' notice under Section 35 and no notice was issued. Suspension salary and the 12-month compensation claim were not established by evidence.
Legal principles established
#- A reason for termination that only arises during termination or summary dismissal will seldom be fair and valid; a valid reason must flow from the initial disciplinary events.
- Deviation from the charge in the show cause letter at the disciplinary hearing contravenes Section 41 of the Employment Act and the constitutional rights to fair hearing, fair labour practices and fair administrative action.
- An employer bears the burden of proving the reasons for dismissal, that they are valid and fair, and that the grounds are justified.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the summary dismissal against the Claimant was procedurally and substantively unfair.
- 2.Compensation under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act of three months' gross salary, KES 397,506.
- 3.One month's salary in lieu of notice, KES 132,502.
- 4.Interest on the awarded sum at court rates from the date of the Judgment till full payment.
- 5.Costs of the suit.
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 (Sections 41, 43, 45, 47(5), 49(1)(c), 35, 36) and Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Two months' salary for the period of suspension (KShs. 265,004.00)
Entitlement not established by evidence
12 months' salary as compensation for unlawful termination (KShs. 1,590,024.00)
Court exercised its discretion under Section 49(1)(c) and awarded only three months' gross salary, taking into account the circumstances of the termination, length of service and that the Claimant obtained new employment
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the Claimant.
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 employer must prove the reasons for termination/dismissal [section 43]; prove the reasons are valid and fair [section 45]; prove that the grounds are justified [section 47 (5)] amongst other provisions.
In light of the foregoing premises, I come to the inescapable conclusion that the summary dismissal was procedurally unfair.
I find that the summary dismissal against the Claimant wasn't substantively fair.
judgment is entered for the Claimant against the Respondent as follows: i. A declaration that the summary dismissal against him was procedurally and substantively unfair.
Compensation under the provisions of Section 49[1][c] of the Employment Act, three months’ gross salary, KES. 397,506.
Interest on the awarded sum at court rates from the date of this Judgment till full payment.
Issues in the judgment
#The Response is dated 30th November 2002 in one passage but the Respondent's witness statements are dated 28th November 2022 and exhibits list dated 30th November 2024, suggesting typographical errors in dates within the judgment
The judgment states the Claimant was summarily dismissed by a letter dated 29th July 2022 in the pleadings and elsewhere, but the Respondent's witness statement refers to a dismissal letter dated 25th July 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John v African Gas and Oil Limited (Cause E087 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2023 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause (Memorandum of Claim filed 7th November 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2023/eng@2025-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.