Mayfair Holdings Ltd v Simiyu (Appeal E063 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2833 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cut a worker's unfair dismissal award in half because her employer had properly given her a notice to show cause and a hearing before firing her.
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 dismissal of the Respondent was procedurally fair under section 41 of the Employment Act
- 2.Whether the compensation award of Kshs. 210,000/- for unfair dismissal was justified
- 3.Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the Appellant's counterclaim
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of summary dismissal under section 41 of the Employment Act
The Respondent was accorded all rights under section 41: she received a notice to show cause, replied, and was heard at a disciplinary hearing; the trial court erred in finding the process a sham
The Court examined the record (pages 41-49) and found evidence of a notice to show cause, a reply and a disciplinary hearing on 15th November 2023. The Respondent's own statement admitted receipt of the show-cause letter. The Magistrate's finding that the proceedings were a sham was thus erroneous, and the compensation award for unfair dismissal could not stand.
Whether the Appellant proved its counterclaim
Counterclaim failed for want of proof; the documents tendered named sales representatives other than the Respondent
Although the Respondent admitted altering reconciliation reports, the Appellant's audit and claim documents linked the losses to sales representatives who were not the Respondent. The trial court's dismissal of the counterclaim was therefore upheld, as the Appellant did not adduce sufficient evidence proving the sums claimed against the Respondent personally.
Duties of a first appellate court on appeal from the Magistrate's Court
The Court is enjoined to evaluate and examine the trial record and evidence to arrive at its own conclusion, as per Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd
Being a first appeal, the Court retried the matter on the record. It warned itself that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses testify and made due allowance for that handicap, before re-evaluating the evidence and substituting its own findings on both the termination claim and the counterclaim.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions while making allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
- Section 41 of the Employment Act requires that before termination for misconduct the employee be given a notice to show cause and a hearing, and be heard
Court orders
#- 1.Vacated the decision of the Hon. Mr. E. Obina SPM and replaced it with a judgment awarding the Respondent unpaid leave for 2 months (Kshs. 70,000/-) and salary for October and November 2023 (Kshs. 70,000/-)
- 2.Costs of the suit before the Magistrate's Court limited to the sum of Kshs. 140,000/-
- 3.A certificate of service to be issued if not already issued in terms of section 51 of the Employment Act
- 4.Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrate's Court
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the Magistrate's Court (employment matter); statutory appellate jurisdiction not expressly cited
Relief refused
#Compensation of Kshs. 210,000/- for unfair/unlawful/unprocedural dismissal
The Court found the disciplinary process complied with section 41 of the Employment Act, so the dismissal was procedurally fair
Appellant's counterclaim of Kshs. 113,936/-
Documents attached named sales representatives who were not the Respondent; the trial court's dismissal of the counterclaim upheld
Costs
Costs of the Magistrate's Court suit limited to Kshs. 140,000/-; the parties to each bear their own costs of the appeal.
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 result is that the decision of the Hon. Mr. E. Obina SPM is vacated and replaced with a judgment awarding the Respondent
Costs of the suit before the Magistrate’s Court limited to the sum of Kshs. 140,000/-
The parties to each bear their own costs for this Appeal.
The Court returns that the sums of Kshs. 210,000/- awarded as compensation for unfair or unlawful and unprocedural dismissal were misplaced.
The Learned Magistrate thus fell in error in holding that the disciplinary proceeding was a sham. The proceedings were procedural and were not a sham.
Issues in the judgment
#Grounds of appeal are stated as being faulted but the list of grounds appears cut off in the judgment ('faulting the Learned Magistrate for:' followed by an unnumbered fragment)
Case title, case number and neutral citation are not stated anywhere in the judgment text
Inconsistent use of party labels - the Respondent is at one point referred to as 'The Claimant'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mayfair Holdings Ltd v Simiyu (Appeal E063 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2833 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2833/eng@2025-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.