Munialo v Muindi t/a Kageni Resort Development and Farm (Cause E040 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2424 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a farm manager's dismissal unfair because the employer skipped the mandatory show-cause letter and hearing, awarding her Kshs.432,704 despite proven misconduct.
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 of the claimant's contract of service was unfair and unlawful.
- 2.Whether the reliefs sought are merited.
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the termination
The termination was procedurally unfair because the claimant was neither issued a show cause letter nor accorded a disciplinary hearing, contrary to section 41 of the Employment Act.
The respondent admitted under oath that he never issued a show cause letter or accorded the claimant a disciplinary hearing. Section 41 of the Employment Act mandates that an employer explain the reasons for termination and hear the employee's representations before dismissal. The admission under oath rendered the termination procedurally unfair notwithstanding the validity of the reasons.
Validity of the reason for termination
The respondent proved a valid reason for termination based on the claimant's negligence and improper performance of duty.
The claimant admitted spending Kshs.48,000 on fuel of which only Kshs.3,000 was supported by ETR receipts, and admitted making a wrong spreadsheet entry regarding Kshs.2,400 paid to workers. These admissions, contrary to her contractual duty to maintain accurate financial records, amounted to wilful neglect and careless performance under section 44(4)(c) of the Employment Act.
Compensation and reliefs
The claimant was awarded two months' gross salary as compensation, one month's notice pay, March salary, pro-rata leave, housing allowance and 7 months' pension, totalling Kshs.432,704.84.
Compensation was limited to two months' gross salary because the claimant served less than a year and her misconduct contributed to the termination. Notice pay followed section 35(1)(c). March salary was payable because no law permits unilateral unpaid leave. Leave was computed pro-rata under section 28, and housing allowance at 15% of basic pay under section 31.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination to be fair, the employer must prove both a valid reason and adherence to fair procedure, including notifying the employee of the charges and affording an opportunity to respond.
- There is no legal basis for an employer to unilaterally place an employee on unpaid leave.
- Housing allowance is a statutory right where the employer neither provides housing nor pays an allowance.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair and unlawful.
- 2.The respondent to pay the claimant: Notice Kshs.84,000.00; Compensation Kshs.168,000.00; Salary for March Kshs.43,354.84; Leave Kshs.22,050.00; Housing allowance Kshs.24,300.00; Pension Kshs.91,000.00; Total Kshs.432,704.84.
- 3.The award is subject to statutory deductions.
- 4.The claimant is awarded costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of this 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 (first-instance employment claim)
Relief refused
#Anticipated salary of Kshs.4,452,000 for the unexpired 53-month contract term
Not supported by evidence and the law
Claim for public holidays worked
Lacked particulars and supporting evidence; burden on the claimant
Order compelling remittance of NSSF and NHIF deductions
No evidence that deductions were made from the claimant's salary
Pension for 53 months (Kshs.689,000)
No basis provided; only 7 months' pension held by the respondent awarded
Costs
The claimant is awarded costs of the suit 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.
Declaration that the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair and unlawful.
The respondent to pay the claimant; Notice………………………………………Kshs.84,000.00 Compensation………………………………Kshs.168,000.00
The claimant is awarded costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of this judgment.
The admission by the respondent under oath that he never complied with the above mandatory process renders the termination procedurally unfair.
There is no law that permits an employer to unilaterally send an employee on unpaid leave.
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical errors in the judgment, e.g. the follow-up meeting date stated as '16th March 3024' and 'Kshs.22.050' for leave instead of Kshs.22,050
The memorandum sent the claimant on unpaid leave from 3rd March 2024 yet the March salary award is computed on 16 days, described inconsistently with the dates of termination on 16th March 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Munialo v Muindi t/a Kageni Resort Development and Farm (Cause E040 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2424 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2424/eng@2025-09-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.