Ndeto v Siginon Group Ltd (Cause E572 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 155 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court ruled that an employer who followed fair disciplinary procedures and had evidence of misconduct lawfully dismissed an employee, whose defamation claim also failed.
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 termination of the Claimant's employment was procedurally fair.
- 2.Whether the Respondent proved a valid and fair reason for termination.
- 3.Whether the Claimant proved his claim for defamation.
- 4.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought.
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness under Section 41 of the Employment Act
The minimum procedural requirements were substantially complied with; termination was not procedurally unfair.
The Claimant was issued a notice to show cause, responded to it, and attended a disciplinary hearing accompanied by a witness, with minutes produced. The Court found he was informed of the accusations, invited to respond and heard before the termination decision, satisfying Section 41.
Valid and fair reason under Sections 43 and 45
The Respondent established a valid and fair reason for termination.
GPS tracking records, route logs, investigation reports and photographs showed the vehicle left the approved route, entered unauthorised premises in an area known for cargo pilferage, and the Claimant admitted the deviation. His explanation did not address entry into unauthorised premises, compromising the trust necessary for a logistics employment relationship.
Defamation
The defamation claim failed for lack of publication, and the statements attracted qualified privilege.
The allegations were contained in internal disciplinary documents generated during an employment investigation. No evidence showed publication to outsiders, prospective employers, customers or the public, and communications made in bona fide disciplinary proceedings attract qualified privilege.
Legal principles established
#- An employer need not prove misconduct beyond reasonable doubt; the test is whether the employer genuinely believed on reasonable grounds that misconduct occurred.
- Communications made during bona fide disciplinary proceedings attract qualified privilege and do not automatically amount to defamation.
- Issuance of a certificate of service under Section 51 of the Employment Act is mandatory.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration of unfair termination declined.
- 2.Claim for compensation for unfair termination under Section 49 of the Employment Act fails.
- 3.Claim for damages for defamation dismissed.
- 4.Claim for accrued terminal dues declined as not pleaded, particularised or proved.
- 5.The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service within thirty (30) days if not already issued.
- 6.Each party shall bear its own costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, Rule 59; Employment Act (Sections 41, 43, 45, 49, 51)
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination was unlawful, unfair and wrongful
Procedural requirements under Section 41 substantially complied with and a valid and fair reason was proved
Compensation for unfair termination under Section 49
Termination found lawful and fair
Damages for defamation
No publication beyond the disciplinary process; statements attracted qualified privilege
Accrued terminal dues
No specific unpaid terminal dues were pleaded, particularised or proved
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs.
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.
The applicable standard is whether the employer had reasonable and suficient grounds to genuinely believe that misconduct had occurred.
the accusations arose from an investigation conducted by the employer in the course of disciplinary proceedings and therefore attracted qualified privilege.
The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service within thirty (30) days if not already issued.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The delivery date is stated as 2026 while the memorandum of claim is dated 2025 and the notice to show cause 2024, consistent internally but with a future-dated delivery text ('25TH JUNE 2026'); retained as printed.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ndeto v Siginon Group Ltd (Cause E572 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 155 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/155/eng@2026-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.