Warren Enterprises Ltd v Oyido
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cut an unfair dismissal award sharply because the employer gave only 48 hours' notice for the disciplinary hearing, even though the misconduct itself was proven.
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 finding that the notice issued to the Respondent to attend the disciplinary hearing held on 9th June 2021 was short notice
- 2.Whether the trial court erred in finding that the Respondent was unfairly terminated
- 3.Whether the trial court erred in granting the Respondent the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Adequacy of 48 hours' notice for a disciplinary hearing
48 hours is insufficient; the trial court did not err in finding the notice was short
The court distinguished Ombajo on facts but held the principle constant: disciplinary proceedings that may cost an employee their livelihood cannot be rushed. It relied on Odipo and Gibendi, the latter holding an employee need not complain about short notice and that at least seven clear days should be granted absent good reason. Ombajo remains binding on the ELRC.
Whether the termination was unfair
Termination was substantively justified (valid reason of double charging/theft of employer's property) but procedurally unfair due to short notice
Under section 45(2) the employer must prove both a valid and fair reason and fair procedure. The court accepted the misconduct allegations as a valid reason but found the 48-hour notice breached the procedural fairness requirements of section 41 of the Employment Act and section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, rendering the termination unfair on procedure alone.
Coercion allegation in signing disciplinary minutes
The coercion claim was not pleaded and should not have been a basis of the trial court's determination
The court agreed with the appellant that allegations of coercion must be specifically pleaded; since the respondent did not plead coercion into signing the minutes, the trial court erred in relying on it. The minutes, signed by the respondent on 10th June 2021, could therefore stand as evidence of admission of the misconduct.
Terminal dues, SACCO deductions and accrued leave
SACCO and welfare dues were lawfully deductible; accrued leave had been paid; June salary limited to 12 days worked
Under sections 17 and 19 of the Employment Act an employer may deduct amounts owed to a third party under an agreement; receipts supported the deductions. A payslip showed Kshs. 21,015 leave pay, so the leave award was set aside. Compensation was reduced to a nominal one month's salary given the valid reason and the respondent's failure to raise the procedural lapse.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employee faces disciplinary proceedings that may result in loss of employment, the process cannot be rushed; the employee must be given sufficient time to prepare
- 48 hours is not sufficient time to prepare for a disciplinary hearing
- A termination may be substantively justified yet procedurally unfair under section 45 of the Employment Act
- SACCO loan dues secured through salary are a lawful deduction at source by the employer at the end of employment
Court orders
#- 1.The finding that the termination was both substantively and procedurally unfair is set aside; in place thereof the termination was substantively justified but procedurally unfair
- 2.One month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 37,086/- awarded
- 3.The award of compensation under section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act is reviewed and reduced to 1 month's gross salary, being Kshs. 37,086/-
- 4.The award of salary for June 2021 is set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs. 14,834.40, being salary for the 12 days worked; total monetary compensation Kshs. 89,006/40
- 5.The award for accrued leave is set aside
- 6.Interest on the sums awarded under paragraphs (b) and (c) at court rates from the date of the judgment of the lower Court until payment in full
- 7.Each party shall 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
- Chief Magistrates Court Milimani at Nairobi
- MCELRC No. E1386 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over appeals from the Chief Magistrates Court (employment matters)
Relief refused
#Accrued leave award
Payslip evidence showed Kshs. 21,015 had already been paid for leave earned but not taken
Full month's salary for June 2021
Employment terminated on 12th June 2021; only 12 days worked, which was not contested
Eight months' salary compensation
Valid reason existed for termination; unfairness arose from procedure only, warranting a nominal award
Costs
The Appeal being partially successful, each party shall bear their own costs of the 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.
where an employee is called upon to attend disciplinary proceedings which may result in the loss of his or her employment and livelihood, such a process cannot be rushed, the employee must be given sucient time to prepare.
Equally the Court finds that 48 hours is not sucient time to prepare for disciplinary hearing.
Although the court finds that the Appellant had a valid reason for terminating the Respondent’s employment, the failure to follow a fair procedure renders the termination unfair within the meaning of Section 45 of the Employment Act.
The finding of the learned trial Court that the termination of the Respondent’s employment was both substantively and procedurally unfair is hereby set aside. In place thereof, this Court finds that the termination was substantively justied but procedurally unfair.
The award of compensation for unfair termination pursuant to section 49(1) (c) of the Employment Act is hereby reviewed and reduced to 1 month’s gross salary, being Kshs. 37,086/-
The Appeal being partially successful, each party shall bear their own costs of the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Statement of claim quote uses male pronoun for female claimant
Ground ix numbered '9.' within an already numbered list
Respondent's submissions say dismissal letter dated 21st June 2021; judgment elsewhere uses 12th June 2021
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Warren Enterprises Ltd v Oyido", Case Analysis (2026). Appeal E371 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2484/eng@2026-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.