Riley Falcon Security Services v Ngisa (Appeal E051 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2934 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that giving an employee only 48 hours to answer disciplinary charges is unfair, and upheld most of the dismissal payout.
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's summary dismissal was unlawful, unfair and inhumane
- 2.Whether the Respondent is entitled to any of the reliefs awarded by the Magistrate's Court
Key legal issues
#Adequacy of 48 hours to respond to a notice to show cause
The court upheld the Magistrate's finding that 48 hours was insufficient; the Respondent's ability to reply within 24 hours did not cure the shortness of the period
The court reasoned that fairness requires a reasonable time to respond to a notice to show cause. The fact that the Respondent answered within 24 hours did not absolve the employer, since the adequacy of the time afforded is judged objectively, not by the employee's early compliance. The Magistrate's finding on this score was therefore not disturbed.
Interference with the trial court's discretionary award of 12 months' compensation
The appellate court declined to interfere with the Magistrate's discretionary award of 12 months' salary compensation, finding no improper exercise of discretion
The court restated the principle that quantum of compensation is discretionary and an appellate court may only intervene where the trial court was plainly wrong, made a serious mistake, ignored a material factor, relied on an improper factor, or seriously misweighed proper facts. None of these was demonstrated, and the court declined to substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court.
Award of one month's salary in lieu of notice
The notice pay award was wrongly granted because the amount had already been computed and paid in the Respondent's final dues; it was removed from the final sum payable
The court found this to be the only improperly decided issue. Since the notice pay was included in the final dues paid to the Respondent, awarding it again as a relief would result in double payment. The court therefore deleted this head from the decretal sum while leaving the rest of the judgment intact.
Legal principles established
#- A 48-hour period to respond to a notice to show cause is not a reasonable time and does not afford an employee adequate time to prepare a defence
- An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's exercise of discretion on quantum unless the trial court was plainly wrong or made a serious mistake
- Notice pay already computed and paid in final dues cannot be awarded again as a relief
Court orders
#- 1.The finding of the Learned Magistrate on the adequacy of time to respond to the notice to show cause upheld (not disturbed)
- 2.The award of Kshs. 15,141/- being one month's salary in lieu of notice removed from the final sum payable by the Appellant, having been computed in final dues
- 3.The award of Kshs. 181,703/- as 12 months' salary compensation, Kshs. 75,709/- gratuity, certificate of service and interest upheld
- 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 at Winam
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over appeals from the Magistrate's Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act); not expressly cited in the judgment
Relief refused
#Appellant's prayer to set aside the entire Trial Court judgment and dismiss the Respondent's suit
The appeal substantially failed; only the notice pay award was reversed
Appellant's prayer for costs of the appeal
Appeal substantially failed; each party to bear own costs
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs in this 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 fact that the Respondent was able to respond within 24 hours on a demand to give an explanation within 48 hours does not absolve the Appellant from the accusation made that it did not give the Respondent adequate time to respond to the notice to show cause.
A reasonable time is expected and a period of 48 hours cannot be said to be suficient in this case.
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's exercise of discretion unless it is demonstrated the trial court was "plainly wrong" or made a "serious mistake".
As an appellate court it is improper for me to simply substitute my own opinion for that of the trial court. I find that there was no improper exercise of discretion by the Learned Hon. Magistrate.
I find that the only issue that is improperly decided was the award of one month notice in the sum of Kshs. 15,141/-. This was computed in final dues and therefore could not be granted as a relief.
In light of the foregoing the Court will remove this award from the final sum payable by the Appellant. As the appeal has substantially failed save for the reversal of the notice pay, the parties will each bear their own costs in this appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's own case number and the trial court case number are not stated in the text supplied
The parties are labeled Appellant/Respondent on appeal but the underlying claim is described with the employee as 'Respondent' while in the trial court he was the claimant/plaintiff; the appeal framing is used consistently in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Riley Falcon Security Services v Ngisa (Appeal E051 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2934 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2934/eng@2025-10-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.