Mwangi v Solio Ranch Limited (Cause E034 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2390 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that even an employee caught with company property must be given a hearing before dismissal, or the dismissal is unfair.
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 contract unfairly/unlawfully
- 2.Whether the reliefs sought are merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the dismissal was grounded on a valid reason
Yes - taking the employer's property without permission and keeping it at a private home amounted to theft, justifying summary dismissal under section 44(4)(g); the ground of arrest failed under section 44(4)(f).
The claimant admitted during cross-examination that some items found in his home had no documentary proof of having been gifted to him. That admission gave the employer reasonable grounds to suspect theft of those items. However, the ground of arrest relied on in the termination letter was invalid because the claimant was dismissed only two days after arrest, whereas section 44(4)(f) permits dismissal on arrest only if the employee is not released within 14 days.
Whether fair procedure was followed
No - the claimant was never accorded a disciplinary hearing, rendering the dismissal unfair despite the valid reason.
RW1 admitted under oath that no disciplinary hearing was conducted and that the dismissal was based on information from the police. Citing George Musamali v G4S Security Services Kenya Ltd, the court held that an employee must be notified of charges and afforded an opportunity to respond before dismissal, no matter how apparent the guilt. Being caught with the employer's property did not extinguish the constitutional right to fair labour practices and fair administrative action.
Whether the reliefs sought were merited
Partially - declaration, notice pay, six months' compensation, leave, off days and gratuity were awarded; compensation capped at six months due to the claimant's misconduct.
Having found procedural unfairness, the court held the claimant proved his case on a balance of probabilities and was entitled to the declaration and reliefs. Compensation was limited to six months' gross salary because the claimant's own misconduct caused the dismissal. Notice pay followed paragraph 7 of the appointment letter, gratuity paragraph 11, and the leave claim stood unrebutted as the respondent filed no leave records.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination to pass muster it must be grounded on a valid reason and fair procedure; the burden of proving these rests with the employer once the employee contests the termination.
- An employee caught with the employer's property still retains the right to be heard before dismissal; dismissal without a hearing is procedurally unfair even where the reason is valid.
- Under section 44(4)(f) of the Employment Act, arrest alone is not a valid ground for summary dismissal unless the employee is not released within fourteen days.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the termination of the claimant's employment contract was unfair and unlawful
- 2.Respondent to pay the claimant Kshs.2,126,943.00 comprising notice (242,310), compensation (484,620), leave (242,310), off days (26,923) and gratuity (1,130,780)
- 3.The award is subject to statutory deductions
- 4.The claimant is awarded costs plus interest at court rates from the date of the 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 (unfair termination claim)
Relief refused
#Full 12 months' compensation for unfair termination (awarded only 6 months)
The claimant caused his dismissal through misconduct despite long service
Costs
The claimant is awarded costs plus interest at court rates 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.
The termination of his employment contract was unfair and unlawful.
The respondent is ordered to pay him: Notice...Kshs.242,310.00 Compensation...Kshs.484,620.00 Leave...Kshs.242,310.00 Ofi days...Kshs. 26,923.00 Gratuity...Kshs.1,130,780.00
The award is subject to statutory deductions.
The claimant is awarded costs plus interest at court rates from the date of this judgment.
Having found that the claimant was dismissed without being heard, I now hold that the dismissal, though grounded on a valid reason, was rendered unfair by the failure to follow a fair procedure.
Issues in the judgment
#Reliefs computation in the claim appears internally inconsistent (leave claimed as 80,770 x 3 = 242,310 for 90 days; the award uses 80,770 x 90/30 which yields the same figure, but the prayer computes gratuity as 1,130,780 while the arithmetic shown (80,770 x 15/30 x 28) yields approximately 1,130,780 only by rounding).
The judgment states the claimant is 'entitled to the reliefs sought' and awards all monetary reliefs, yet compensation was reduced from 12 months claimed to 6 months awarded, which is a partial rather than full grant of the relief sought.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwangi v Solio Ranch Limited (Cause E034 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2390 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 12th August 2024 (ELRC, Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2390/eng@2025-08-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.