Lex Oilfield Solutions Limited v Nganga (Appeal E018 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3736 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Machakos court dismissed an employer's appeal, confirming that failing to follow a fair disciplinary process makes a termination unlawful.
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 trial court erred in its finding of unfair termination
- 2.Whether the trial court erred in reliefs granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the respondent was substantively and procedurally unfair
Yes - the appellant failed to prove a valid reason and failed to accord the respondent procedural fairness under section 41; the trial court's finding was upheld
The minutes of the alleged disciplinary meeting were unsigned, titled a General Meeting, and the respondent was not given advance notice that his conduct would be discussed nor the right to bring witnesses. The meal receipt supporting the meeting date was overwritten and deemed inauthentic. The alleged audit report supporting the theft allegation was never produced. Under section 43 the burden of justifying termination lay on the employer, which the appellant failed to discharge.
Whether the award of six months' salary as compensation was excessive
No - taking into account section 49(4) factors, including length of service (May 2018 to February 2023), the award was not inordinately high
The trial court considered length of service and found no valid reason for termination. There was no evidence the respondent contributed to the termination. Applying the Butt v Khan principle, an appellate court will not disturb a damages award unless it is inordinately high or low or rests on wrong principles. The award of six months' salary did not meet that threshold.
Whether the award of unpaid leave (Kshs 90,641) was justified
Yes - the respondent had 36 outstanding leave days plus entitlement for 2021-2022 which the appellant failed to disprove by producing leave records for those years
The appellant produced leave forms and email correspondence covering 2018-2020 showing 36 outstanding days, and the respondent did not dispute the email correspondence. The appellant produced no leave records for 2021 and 2022, leading to an adverse inference that the respondent did not proceed on leave in those years. With 42 days' entitlement for 2021-2022 plus the previous 36 days, the award stood.
Whether notice pay of Kshs 45,000 was properly awarded
Yes - notice pay is due under section 36 of the Employment Act and the award was upheld
Since the court upheld the finding that the termination was unfair and not a justified summary dismissal for gross misconduct, the employee was entitled to notice pay under section 36. The trial court's award on this head was therefore confirmed without variation.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must prove both valid reason (substantive fairness) and fair procedure (procedural fairness) for a termination to be fair under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
- A first appellate court must revisit the evidence, evaluate it and reach its own conclusion
- An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is inordinately high or low or made on wrong principles
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.Judgment and Decree of Hon. E.K Suter (PM) delivered on 13th March 2025 in Mavoko CMELRC No. E178 OF 2023 upheld
- 3.Costs of the appeal to be paid to the respondent by the appellant
- 4.30 days stay granted
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (Mavoko), ELRC
- Mavoko CMELRC No. E178 OF 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; appeal from Magistrates' Court ELRC jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Setting aside or variation of the trial court's judgment and decree
The court found no basis to interfere with the trial court's findings on unfair termination or on the reliefs awarded
Appellant's costs in the appeal and in the subordinate court
Costs were awarded to the respondent as the appeal was dismissed
Costs
Costs of the appeal to be paid to the respondent by the appellant; 30 days stay granted.
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.
In conclusion, the appeal is dismissed for lack of merit. The Judgment and Decree of the Hon. E.K Suter(PM) delivered on 13th March 2025 in Mavoko CMELRC No. E178 OF 2023 is upheld.
Costs of the appeal to be paid to the respondent by the appellant.
The court finds that the Appellant did not prove before the court the reason for the termination to have been valid or the basis of its believe the reason existed.
The court finds that the said minutes, even if they were authentic, would not meet the threshold of section 41 of the Employment Act, as the respondent was not given notice in advance that this was a meeting to discuss his conduct or accorded the right to bring his witnesses.
As the first appellate Court, the role of this court is to revisit the evidence on record, evaluate it and reach its own conclusion in the matter.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment miscites the year of the Kibos Distillers decision as 2035, which is in the future
The judgment inconsistently describes the parties' roles, referring to the appellant as 'respondent/appellant' and to the respondent as 'Claimant/respondent' in the grounds of appeal
The judgment attributes an authority to the Supreme Court (Kenfreight v Nguti) that the respondent described as such, though it appears in the record only as a respondent submission; the court noted it relied on decisions 'cited by the parties' generally
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lex Oilfield Solutions Limited v Nganga (Appeal E018 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3736 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Mavoko CMELRC No. E178 of 2023 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3736/eng@2025-12-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.