Mutuma v DHL Worldwide Express Kenya Limited (Cause E1004 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2153 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled DHL unfairly dismissed its former managing director, awarding him Kshs.8.9 million, but declined reinstatement and ordered him to return the company car.
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 parties were in a contract of service
- 2.Whether the claimant was dismissed and on what reasons
- 3.Whether the procedure adopted to terminate the claimant's employment was fair
- 4.Whether the respondent had valid and genuine reasons to terminate the employment
- 5.What remedies are available to the parties, including the respondent's counterclaim for the motor vehicle
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
Procedure was unfair: no investigation report was prepared or provided, and hardcopy documents requested for the defence were not provided
Although a hearing notice and opportunity to be heard satisfied section 41 of the Employment Act, the absence of an investigation report, denial of hardcopy documents, and apparent bias (RW1 investigating, prosecuting and sitting on the panel) rendered the process unreasonable under section 45. The administrative appeal failed to address these grievances.
Substantive validity of reasons for termination
No valid or genuine reasons existed per section 43; allegations about the 13th cheque were an unjustified afterthought and HR lapses were Kenneth Kaunda's responsibility
RW1's testimony confirmed the 13th salary was treated as policy during COVID-19 and continued to be paid; post-implementation audits found no discrepancy and no counterclaim for refund was made. The human resource function was fully within Kaunda's competence, and the claimant acted in good faith on his advisory; failure to avail the laptop was farfetched absent an investigation report.
Remedies under sections 35 and 49 of the Employment Act
One month's pay in lieu of notice and six months' gross pay as compensation, total award Kshs.8,889,892.06 less PAYE
Terminal dues for salary and leave were paid and not claimed. Notice pay was due per section 35. In assessing compensation under section 49, the Court considered the claimant's continued use of the company vehicle, failure to attend mitigation, but clean record of service, settling on six months' gross salary.
Counterclaim for return of motor vehicle KCX 007P
Counterclaim succeeded for delivery of the vehicle or a partial set-off arrangement
The claimant continued to use the respondent's motor vehicle after termination without legal basis; the Court ordered delivery by 01.11.2025 or a partial set-off agreement against the amount awarded to the claimant.
Legal principles established
#- Duties clearly vested in a professional employee by reason of reliance on their competence cannot be subject of culpability of their supervisors unless collusion or established supervisory failure is shown
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the termination of the claimant's employment by the respondent was unfair
- 2.Respondent to pay the claimant Kshs.8,889,892.06 less PAYE by 01.11.2025 failing interest to run from the date of judgment till full payment
- 3.Declaration that the claimant to deliver to the respondent motor vehicle registration number KCX 007P, Toyota Prado by 01.11.2025 or parties may enter a partial set-off agreement
- 4.Each party to bear own costs of the suit including the counterclaim
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, section 12
Relief refused
#Reinstatement as managing director and board director
Irreparable relationship, vacancy filled, and the three-year limitation under section 12(3) of the ELRC Act had lapsed
Salary, allowances and benefits for 14 years in lost future earnings
Speculative; claimant showed no reason barring him from gainful engagement attributable to the respondent
Bonus and discretionary payments
Discretionary privilege not available consequent to termination per contractual provisions
Pecuniary damages for lost opportunities and damages for discrimination
Not granted; the Court found no established discrimination and awarded only statutory and compensatory remedies
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the suit including the counterclaim.
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 Court finds that duties clearly vested in a professional employee by reason of reliance on their competence cannot be subject of culpability of their supervisors unless it is shown that the supervisor colluded or made an established supervisory failure.
By that testimony, the Court finds that the suspension and subsequent termination was malicious and unfair as urged for the claimant because, the evidence was that in fact, no investigation report was prepared in view of the purported investigations.
The declaration the termination of the claimant’s employment by the respondent was unfair.
The respondent to pay the claimant Kshs.8, 889,892.06 less PAYE by 01.11.2025 failing interest to run thereon from the date of this judgment till full payment.
Each party to bear own costs of the suit including the counterclaim.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutuma v DHL Worldwide Express Kenya Limited (Cause E1004 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2153 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2153/eng@2025-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.