Amakobe v Majorel Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E257 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 3745 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled Majorel unfairly fired its HR Manager and awarded her five months' salary, Kshs 720,000, plus costs.
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 Claimant was unfairly terminated from employment by the Respondent
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the reasons for termination were valid and justifiable under section 43 of the Employment Act
The Respondent failed to demonstrate valid and justifiable reasons; the alleged infractions were not proved and were disproportionate to termination
The court scrutinised the termination letter grounds against the evidence. The RW conceded there was no written 50% pass-mark requirement, that scoresheets were unsigned and not proof of employment, and the claimant was not implicated in bribery. The virtual hearing minutes were unsigned, unattributed and non-compliant with the Evidence Act, hence of no probative value, so the alleged infractions, if any, did not justify dismissal.
Whether the procedure followed met section 41 procedural fairness
The process was deficient: the claimant was not furnished with the investigation report or the documents relied on, and the minutes of the virtual disciplinary hearing were unreliable
Although suspended and given a show cause letter and hearing, the claimant was never availed the investigation report or supporting documents, seeing them only when the Respondent filed its defence. The unsigned and unattributed minutes of the virtual hearing had no probative value, denying the court a reliable record of the disciplinary process and undermining the employer's justification.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought
Compensation awarded under section 49 at five months' salary (Kshs. 720,000/-), far below the Kshs. 4,320,000/- claimed, plus costs
Having found unfair termination, the court applied section 49(4) factors: her roughly one year and three months of open-ended service, the circumstances in which she contributed or not, and her employability as an HR professional. Five months' salary was held reasonable, with the award subject to taxes and statutory deductions and attracting interest from judgment.
Legal principles established
#- Before an employer terminates an employee's contract there must be valid reason(s) touching on misconduct, poor performance or physical incapacity
- The reasonableness test for a dismissal is whether a reasonable employer would have dismissed on the same facts, within a band of reasonableness
- Minutes or transcriptions of a virtual disciplinary hearing that do not disclose who was present, who recorded them and are unsigned have no probative value
- Even proved infractions may be disproportionate to summary termination; less drastic measures may suffice
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Respondent had no valid and justifiable reasons for terminating the Claimant's service (unfair termination)
- 2.An award of five months' salary, being Kshs. 720,000/-, as compensation for unfair termination, subject to taxes and statutory deductions, with interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 3.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes, applying the Employment Act, 2007 (sections 41, 43, 44, 47(5) and 49)
Relief refused
#Terminal dues and compensatory damages totaling Kshs. 4,320,000/- as prayed
The court found five months' salary reasonable under section 49(4) of the Employment Act, considering her short service of about one year and three months and her prospects as an HR professional
Costs
The claimant shall have costs of the suit.
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 Court finds and holds that the respondent had no valid and justifiable reasons for terminating the claimant's service.
The Court awards the claimant the sum of Kshs. 720,000/- as compensation for unfair termination. This award shall be subject to taxes and statutory deductions but shall attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
The claimant shall further have costs of the suit.
The purported transcription as observed earlier, do not meet the requirements of the Evidence Act concerning electronic evidence. They are as a result of no probative value.
the infractions if at all existed were not proportional to the drastic action of terminating the claimant's service some other less drastic measure could have adequately addressed the claimant's fault if any.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment describes the matter as a first-instance claim but the signature block identifies the judicial officer as 'PRESIDING JUDGE-APPEALS DIVISION', and the court's own record of dates is internally inconsistent on the show cause letter
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amakobe v Majorel Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E257 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 3745 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3745/eng@2025-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.