Gakenia v Lion Landscapes (Cause E030 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2264 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court upheld an employee's dismissal, ruling that secretly recording colleagues and posting work content without a disclaimer gave the employer valid, lawful reasons.
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 respondent terminated the claimant's employment unfairly and unlawfully.
- 2.Whether the reliefs sought are merited.
Key legal issues
#Whether the reasons for termination were valid
Two of the three cited reasons were valid: posting work-related social media content without a disclaimer contrary to the Staff Handbook, and recording colleagues without their consent
The court examined the three reasons in the termination letter. On the first (false and misleading statements about securing funding), the court found the claimant only claimed an instrumental role, not sole credit, so that reason failed. On the second, the claimant never produced the posts to prove a disclaimer, so the employer's proof stood. On the third, the court held secret recording of colleagues breached their privacy.
Whether a fair procedure under section 41 of the Employment Act was followed
Yes - show cause letter, response, hearing with option of accompaniment, deliberation, appeal and payment of dues satisfied section 41 and 45
The claimant was served with a show cause letter and responded; he was invited to a disciplinary hearing and could bring a colleague of his choice but attended alone; charges were read and answered; the decision was communicated with exit benefits and a right of appeal, which he prosecuted and lost. Alleged bias from spousal overlap on the panels was excused given the small size of the organisation.
Whether the claimant's own right to privacy under Article 31 was violated
No - the claimant himself violated colleagues' privacy by recording them without consent, and he failed to prove the shared letters were privileged
The court turned the privacy claim against the claimant, finding his secret recordings of colleagues infringed their constitutional privacy. As to his complaint that confidential letters he sent to the CEO and Operations Manager were read to others, the claimant led no proof that such internal communications were privileged or immune from sharing within the employer.
Legal principles established
#- A fair termination requires both valid reasons and a fair procedure, and the employer bears the burden of proving both under section 45 of the Employment Act
- Recording colleagues in the workplace without their consent violates their right to privacy and can constitute a valid reason for dismissal
- An employee in a small organization faces practical limits in disciplinary-process impartiality and must generally appear before the same employer
- Four elements must be discernible for a disciplinary procedure to pass muster under section 41 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the claimant's suit
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the respondent
- 3.Claimant directed to collect his certificate of service in case he has not yet collected it
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour disputes (Employment Act; unfair termination claim under sections 41, 43 and 45)
Relief refused
#Declaration of unfair and unlawful termination and compensation of 12 months' salary (Kshs.1,287,984)
The court found valid reasons for termination and a fair procedure under sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
Declaration of unfair labour practices and general damages
Termination was found fair and lawful; no unfair labour practice established
Declaration of violation of the right to privacy under Article 31 of the Constitution and general damages
It was the claimant who violated other employees' privacy by recording them without consent, and he did not prove the shared communications were privileged
A 'proper' certificate of service
The certificate had been issued and the claimant did not specify how he wanted it to read
Costs
Suit dismissed with costs to the respondent
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 gone through the bundles of evidence and submissions presented, I find that the claimant has not proved his case on a balance of probability and therefore I dismiss the suit with costs to the respondent.
I find that the claimant’s dismissal was done in accordance with a fair procedure as required under section 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.
I find that the respondent has proved that it had two valid reasons for dismissing the claimant from service namely, posting on the social media information related to his work at the respondent without an accompanying disclaimer, and recording his colleagues in the ofice without their consent.
Such conduct was a violation of the right to privacy of the other employees.
An employee in a small organization has limited rights when it come to going through disciplinary process.
Issues in the judgment
#The termination letter reproduced in the judgment dates the disciplinary hearing as 11th August 2023 while the claimant testified the hearing was on 14th August 2023
The judgment references the disciplinary hearing invitation as a letter dated 8th August 2023 without noting the discrepancy with the 11th August date in the termination letter
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gakenia v Lion Landscapes (Cause E030 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2264 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Statement of claim dated 11th July 2024 (ELRC, Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2264/eng@2025-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.