Mochorwa v Bob Morgan Services Limited (Appeal E315 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2639 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a security guard's appeal, confirming his firing was fair and his terminal dues were paid.
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 trial court erred in finding that the termination of the appellant was for justifiable and valid reasons and through a fair procedure
- 2.Whether the trial court erred in finding that the appellant had been paid his terminal dues
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the appellant's employment was for valid and fair reasons
Yes. The appellant admitted accessing the client's bag without consent and switching off the ringing phone; his conduct was inconsistent with security duties and the trial court's finding was a reasonable deduction from the evidence.
The minutes of the disciplinary hearing recorded the appellant's admission that he opened and accessed the client's bag without seeking consent, took the ringing phone, switched it off and returned it. The court held that such conduct by a guard assigned security duties, on a drunk and sleeping customer late at night, cut off communication from those seeking his whereabouts, and justified the employer's genuine belief in the reason for termination.
Whether the appellant was paid his terminal dues
Yes. The appellant admitted his salary was regularly paid through his bank and failed to produce a bank statement to show non-receipt of the terminal dues the respondent deposited into his account.
The respondent produced evidence that terminal dues, including gratuity, were processed and paid into the appellant's bank account at CFC-Stanbic. The appellant denied receiving payment but admitted he did not adduce his bank statement to demonstrate non-receipt, so his bare denial could not displace the documentary proof of payment.
The standard of review applicable to a first appellate court
The first appellate court must reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions but must give allowance to the trial court's advantage and will not interfere with reasonable findings.
Guided by Peters v Sunday Post Limited [1958] EA 424, the court held that it is not open to the first appellate court to review the findings of a trial court simply because it would have reached different results. Having re-evaluated the record, the court was satisfied the trial magistrate's findings were reasonable and a fair deduction from the evidence presented by the parties.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the court is under a duty to reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, while giving due allowance to the trial court's advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, and will not interfere with findings that are reasonable deductions from the evidence.
- An appellate court will not disturb a trial court's decision merely because it would have reached a different result.
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal is dismissed with costs
- 2.It is so ordered
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (Employment and Labour Relations)
- CMEL NO. 009 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the trial magistrate's judgment in an employment claim
Relief refused
#Setting aside, vacating and/or substitution of the trial court's judgment
The appeal was found to be without merit; the trial court's findings were reasonable deductions from the evidence
Costs
The Appeal is 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.
The Appeal is therefore found without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
It is so ordered.
First, on first appeal, the Court is under a duty to reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence on record and draw its own conclusions;
This conduct was inconsistent with somebody assigned security duties.
Whereas the appellant denied receiving any such payment, he admitted not adducing his bank statement to show he never received such payment.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment gives two different dates for the trial court's judgment - the memorandum of appeal is said to challenge a judgment 'delivered on 29th February, 2024' while the prayer refers to 'the judgment delivered on 15th July, 2024 by the trial court'.
The judgment records the theft report as made on 20th December, 2014 and the disciplinary hearing on 17th February, 2015, which appears inconsistent with a 2021 suit and 2024 judgment but may simply reflect the long pendency of the matter.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mochorwa v Bob Morgan Services Limited (Appeal E315 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2639 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Appeal dated 13th December, 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2639/eng@2025-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.