Aringo v Blue Nile Rolling Mills (Appeal E165 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2438 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed employers must hold a fair hearing before any dismissal, even when paying final dues, and employees can still challenge discharge vouchers.
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 learned magistrate erred in finding that the respondent lawfully summarily dismissed the appellant despite the absence of evidence of gross misconduct
- 2.Whether the appellant was taken through a disciplinary process as required by section 41 of the Employment Act
- 3.Whether the signed discharge and tabulated dues bar the appellant's claim
- 4.What remedies, if any, are due to the appellant
Key legal issues
#Mandatory nature of the section 41 hearing before termination or summary dismissal
The termination was unlawful and unfair because the appellant was not taken through any disciplinary hearing under the law or the respondent's internal policies, contrary to sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Section 44 permits summary dismissal for gross misconduct, but due process under section 41 is mandatory in all cases, including gross misconduct. The employee must be invited to a hearing and allowed to make representations in the presence of another employee of his choice. No record of such a hearing was filed, and the learned magistrate's contrary conclusion was erroneous.
Effect of the discharge and tabulated dues on the claim
Under section 35(4) of the Act, the discharge does not stop the employee from claiming what is lawfully due, and payment of terminal dues should be unconditional.
The respondent cancelled the cheque of Ksh. 32,703 because the appellant allegedly signed incorrectly. The court held that terminal dues should be paid unconditionally, and since January 2019 the appellant had been denied his dues without justification. The offered dues therefore remain payable.
Quantum of remedies for unfair termination
The appellant, who served over five years with no record of warnings, was awarded one month's notice pay and five months' compensation.
The appellant earned a gross wage of Ksh. 30,160 and served diligently from 2014 to February 2019 with no disciplinary record. He was denied the right to continue earning a living, warranting five months' salary as compensation under section 49 principles, plus notice pay under section 35.
Legal principles established
#- Due process under section 41 of the Employment Act is mandatory even where the employer converts a summary dismissal into a termination of employment
- Payment of terminal dues or an offer to pay cannot cure a lapse in due process before termination
- A discharge voucher does not bar an employee from claiming lawfully due amounts or challenging unfair labour practice
Court orders
#- 1.The judgment of the trial court in Thika MCELRC No. 10 of 2019 is set aside
- 2.A declaration that the employment terminated unlawfully and unfairly
- 3.Compensation of Ksh. 150,800
- 4.Notice pay of Ksh. 30,160
- 5.Terminal dues of Ksh. 32,703
- 6.Costs of the appeal and the trial court proceedings
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Thika Magistrate's Court (ELRC)
- Thika MCELRC No. 10 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's ELRC decision (statutory appeal from Thika MCELRC No. 10 of 2019)
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.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court in Thika MCELRC No. 10 of 2019 is hereby set aside.
However, due process under section 41 of the Act is mandatory, including in cases of gross misconduct.
The lapse in adhering to the mandatory provisions of the law rendered the termination of employment unlawful and unfair in terms of sections 41 and 45 of the Act.
A discharge voucher can rightly be challenged if not in tandem with the law.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment describes the respondent as having both 'summarily dismissed' the appellant and having terminated his services instead of summary dismissal, without reconciling the two positions
Directions were issued for 8 May 2026 with no compliance and no submissions filed, so the appeal was determined on the record alone
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Aringo v Blue Nile Rolling Mills (Appeal E165 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2438 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Appeal No. E165 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2438/eng@2026-08-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.