H Young & Co (EA)Limited v Ndunda (Appeal E141 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2690 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer cannot fairly dismiss a worker on charges never raised during the disciplinary process, the Employment and Labour Relations Court has confirmed.
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 was wrongfully dismissed
- 2.Whether the Respondent was entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was substantively justified
The dismissal was unfair because the disciplinary panel's own conclusion exculpated the Respondent, having found he acted under the Administrator's instructions, and the subsequent dismissal rested on uncharged matters he was never asked to answer.
The disciplinary minutes recorded an exculpatory conclusion that the driver acted under strict instructions from the Administrator and did not know the site was not the company's. Having reached that conclusion, no reasonable employer would dismiss summarily. The panel's later findings on failure to relay information and personal trips were not charges in the disciplinary process, so dismissing on them breached Articles 47 and 50.
Whether the award of six months' salary as compensation and one month's notice pay should be disturbed
The awards were discretionary and the Appellant failed to demonstrate any ground for interference; the Respondent was entitled to notice pay under sections 35 and 36 of the Employment Act since no notice was issued.
The Appellant only cited decisions and the short length of service, ignoring that courts consider numerous factors beyond longevity of service. No wrong principle, misapprehension of facts, or irrelevant considerations were demonstrated. Having found the summary dismissal unfair, the Respondent remained entitled to notice pay under section 36.
Legal principles established
#- Both substantive and procedural fairness under Section 45(2) of the Employment Act must be demonstrated for a summary dismissal to be fair.
- Summary dismissal premised on matters not the subject of the disciplinary charge and which the employee was not called upon to answer offends fair administrative action and fair hearing under Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution.
- An appellate court will only disturb a discretionary award of compensation if the trial court acted on a wrong principle, misapprehended material facts, or took into account irrelevant factors or failed to consider relevant ones.
Court orders
#- 1.The Appellant's appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (ELRC)
- Memorandum of Claim dated 17th September 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the learned trial Magistrate's judgment in an employment dispute
Relief refused
#Claim for compensation for unutilized leave days
The trial court found the Respondent had not proved unpaid leave, records showing he had taken 25 leave days with the balance included in terminal dues; the Appellant did not challenge that finding on appeal.
Costs
The Appellant's appeal was 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.
fair disciplinary processes are now a constitutional imperative, as has been stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Judicial Service Commission & Another v. LMN, Petition No. 040 of 2024.
In the upshot, I find the Appellant's appeal herein lacking in merit. It is hereby dismissed with costs.
this court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions, though it should always bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should make due allowance in this respect
Issues in the judgment
#The disciplinary panel's conclusion (exculpatory) and its subsequent recommendation of summary dismissal are internally contradictory, as the court itself noted.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "H Young & Co (EA)Limited v Ndunda (Appeal E141 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2690 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2690/eng@2025-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.