Chomba v Board of Management (BOM) (St Aloysius Gonzaga Secondary School) & 3 others (Cause E677 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2640 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan school's failure to let a dismissed Deputy Principal cross-examine his accusers made his termination unfair, costing the employer over Kshs 1.1 million.
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 reasons advanced for termination of the Claimant's employment were valid and proven under the law
- 2.Whether the Claimant was lawfully, fairly, reasonably and procedurally terminated
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to terminal dues and benefits
Key legal issues
#Whether the disciplinary process satisfied section 41 of the Employment Act
The process was unfair and illegal because the Claimant was not given particulars of the charges, was not confronted with his accusers, and was denied the opportunity to cross-examine them
The minutes of the 19th July 2022 hearing showed the charges were read and denied, but no witnesses were called to attest to the allegations of sexual harassment. The alleged victims only testified in court in 2024 after recording statements. Section 41(1) requires the employer to explain the reasons and allow the employee to be heard; none of this was done, so the process was procedurally flawed.
Whether the reason for termination was valid and fair under section 45(2)
Because the disciplinary process was flawed, no valid reason could be established and the termination was unfair and unjustified
Section 45(2) places the burden on the employer to prove both a valid and fair reason and a fair procedure. The procedural defects were fatal: without an opportunity to confront accusers, the allegations could not be tested, and the employer could not discharge its burden of proving the reason for termination. The court therefore found the termination unfair.
What remedies flow from the unfair termination
One month's pay in lieu of notice, unpaid salary arrears, and eight months' salary as compensation, plus costs and interest
Having found the termination unfair, the court exercised its discretion under the Employment Act to award the notice pay provided under the contract, the unpaid salary for July and August 2022, and compensation equivalent to eight months' gross salary, considering the Claimant's 14 years of service, less statutory deductions, with costs and interest.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must, before terminating employment on grounds of misconduct, explain the reasons to the employee and afford the employee an opportunity to state his case, including facing and cross-examining his accusers
- Where the disciplinary process is flawed, the employer cannot prove a valid reason for termination, rendering the termination unfair under section 45(2) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the Claimant's termination was unfair and unjustified
- 2.Payment of 1 month salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 103,551.62
- 3.Payment of unpaid salary arrears of Kshs 207,103.24
- 4.Payment of 8 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination (8 x Kshs 103,551.62 = Kshs 828,412.96), total Kshs 1,139,068 less statutory deductions
- 5.Respondents to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of 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 2007 (sections 41, 44, 45 invoked); first-instance employment claim
Relief refused
#Declaration that the letters of suspension and termination are null and void ab initio
The court declared the termination unfair and awarded remedies instead of nullifying the termination letters
General damages for defamation
The prayer was not among the reliefs awarded; the Respondents had argued it was misplaced in an employment cause
Damages equivalent to 12 months' gross salary (Kshs 1,449,722.62)
The court awarded 8 months' compensation instead of the 12 months claimed
Costs
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect 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.
It is apparent that the claimant was not subjected to a process as stated above. He was not given an opportunity to state his case and neither was he given an opportunity to face his accusers and cross examine them. It is therefore true that he was subjected to an illegal and unfair disciplinary process .
Given that the disciplinary process was fiawed and there could not be a determination of the existence of valid reason leading to the termination, it is my finding that the claimant's termination was unfair and unjustified and I declare it so.
It is noted that during the disciplinary hearing at the respondents premises, the victims of the alleged sexual harassment were never summoned to appear and be cross examined by the claimant. These victims only appeared before this court after recording statements in 2024 to allege the sexual harassment.
1. 1 month salary in lieu of notice = kshs 103,551.62/- 2. Unpaid salary arrears = kshs 207,103.24/- 3. 8 months salary as compensation for the unfair termination = 8x103,551.62= kshs 828,412.96/- Total = kshs 1,139,068/- less statutory deductions. 4. The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The prayer refers to a suspension letter dated 1st July 2022 within a memorandum of claim dated 15th September 2021, which is internally inconsistent with the pleaded chronology
The judgment inconsistently maps the student witnesses: paragraphs 59-60 attribute 'Sylvester Angwenyi' to RW3 and 'Joseph Makokha' to RW4, while paragraphs 37 and 41 identify Joseph Makokha as RW3 and Sylvester Angwenyi as RW4
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chomba v Board of Management (BOM) (St Aloysius Gonzaga Secondary School) & 3 others (Cause E677 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2640 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2640/eng@2025-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.