Kigundu v Auto Express Limited (Cause E318 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 2948 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld an accountant's summary dismissal for misappropriating funds and ordered him to repay over Kshs.1 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was unfair under sections 43, 44 and 45 of the Employment Act
The dismissal was fair: the reasons were valid under section 43 and the procedure for gross misconduct under sections 44 and 45 was fair.
The court found the claimant's conduct gross, warranting summary dismissal under section 44. The claimant confirmed that meetings were held on 28th and 29th January 2019 prior to dismissal, satisfying the fairness requirement under section 45. The misappropriation of petty cash and audit-confirmed shortfalls constituted gross misconduct justifying dismissal without notice.
Whether the claimant's undertaking to refund was made under duress
No duress was proved; the claimant voluntarily signed taking responsibility, so he is liable to refund the counterclaimed sum.
The claimant pleaded and testified that he took responsibility for the amounts counterclaimed, alleging the refund proposals were made under threat of a police report and dismissal. The court found no evidence of duress or threats was adduced, treating his assertion that he had not seen the audit reports as a mere empty afterthought. His signed admission of responsibility established liability to refund.
Legal principles established
#- Section 44 of the Employment Act permits an employer to dismiss without notice on account of gross misconduct
- A voluntary written admission of responsibility for a shortfall binds the employee, and an allegation of duress unsupported by evidence is an afterthought
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the memorandum of claim with costs
- 2.The claimant to pay the respondent Kshs.1,092,496.00 by 01.02.2026 failing which interest to run thereon at Court rates until full payment
- 3.The claimant to pay costs of the counter-claim
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (sections 43, 44 and 45 invoked)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kigundu v Auto Express Limited (Cause E318 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 2948 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2948/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.