King’ori v Nawiri DT Sacco Limited (Cause E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2109 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a Sacco unfairly fired an ill employee without a hearing, but awarded far less money than he claimed.
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 termination occurred during probation period.
- 2.Whether the termination was unlawful and unfair.
- 3.Whether the reliefs sought are merited.
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination occurred during probation
The six-month probation ended on 31st July 2023, so the 28th August 2023 termination occurred after probation
The claimant began work on 1st February 2023 on a six-month probation, which therefore ended on 31st July 2023. The termination letter was dated 25th August 2023 and received on 28th August 2023, hence outside probation.
Whether there was a valid and fair reason for termination
No valid reason; the absence was due to illness and was communicated
The court found unrebutted evidence that the claimant fell ill, notified the CEO via SMS, was visited by managers sent by the CEO, was hospitalised and presented medical evidence. His absence was thus not deliberate and the employer failed to prove a valid and fair reason under section 45.
Whether a fair procedure was followed
No hearing was accorded; the procedure was unfair contrary to section 41
The claimant was neither heard before termination nor allowed to make representations. His claim that he responded to the show cause letter was unrebutted since the CEO's secretary was not called and the CEO did not deny being away. Section 41 requires explanation and hearing before termination for misconduct.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination to pass muster it must rest on a valid reason and be effected through a fair procedure
- A hearing is mandatory before separation even where an employer declines to confirm an employee in a sensitive position
- An employee who is genuinely ill and communicates his illness to the employer has lawful cause for absence
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the claimant's employment was unfairly and unlawfully terminated
- 2.Notice pay of Kshs.130,000.00
- 3.Compensation of one month's salary of Kshs.130,000.00
- 4.Award subject to statutory deductions
- 5.Certificate of service
- 6.Costs of the suit plus interest 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
Relief refused
#12 months' salary compensation (Kshs.1,560,000.00)
Awarded only one month's salary given service of less than seven months and history of absenteeism
Damages for breach of contract (Kshs.3,770,000.00) for lost salary for 29 months
Claim not founded on law or contract of service
General damages (Kshs.1,000,000.00)
Declined as not founded on law or contract of service
Costs
The claimant will have costs plus interest from the date of this 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.
Consequently, I find that the termination of the claimant’s employment was not done during his probation period.
I must hold that the claimant had a lawful cause for absenting himself from work and as such the employer has not proved a valid and fair reason for terminating his employment.
Even if the respondent had good reason not to confirm the claimant in the position of Operations Manager, which I agree is very sensitive in a financial institution, a hearing was mandatory before deciding on the separation.
I enter judgment for him as follows: a. Notice .... Kshs.130,000.00 b. Compensation ..... Kshs.130,000.00 Kshs.260,000.00
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to claimant reporting to work on '15th August 2025' where 2023 is evidently meant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "King’ori v Nawiri DT Sacco Limited (Cause E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2109 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Statement of claim dated 29th January 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2109/eng@2025-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.