Jumba v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2026] KEELRC 15055 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT

NAIROBI

(O N Makau J on 12th November 2026)

CAUSE NO. E367 OF 2024

KELVIN LIGINIA JUMBA ……….……..…………………………....CLAIMANT

VERSUS

NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA LIMITED …..……………..…..RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. By a Memorandum of Claim dated 8th May 2024, the Claimant sued the respondent for unlawful, wrongful and unfair termination of his employment and prayed for the following reliefs: -

a. A declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment is unlawful, wrongful and unfair.

b. Compensation/damages for unlawful and unfair termination (Kshs. 581,731.25 x 12 months) Kshs. 6,980,775.00.

c. Certificate of Service.

d. Costs of the cause.

e. Interest on (b) and (d) at court rates from the time of filing cause to payment in full.

f. Any other relief this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to grant.

2. The Respondent filed a Memorandum in Response dated 31st July 2024, admitting the employment relationship with the claimant and that it terminated his contract for gross misconduct that exposed the bank to the risk of financial losses. Therefore it denied that the termination was unlawful and prayed for the suit to be dismissed with costs.

3. In rejoinder, the Claimant filed a Reply to the Memorandum of Response dated 2nd September 2024, reiterating his claim and putting the Respondent to strict proof of the allegations in the Memorandum of Response.

4. The suit went to full hearing and each side adduced evidence and thereafter filed written submissions.

Evidence

5. The Claimant testified as CW1, and adopted his Written Statement dated 8th May 2024 as his evidence in chief. He further produced 16 documents in the list dated 8th May 2024 and a further 15 letters in the list dated 2nd September 2024. The 31 documents were marked exhibits D1 to D31.

6. In brief, his testimony stated that he was employed by the Respondent in 2014 as a County Relationship Manager in charge of County Governments at a salary of Kshs. 305,000.00. He worked diligently without record of indiscipline and over the time, he earned promotions and salary increments.

7. On 2nd November 2022 he was suspended for 30 days on allegations of failure to follow internal bank procedures and delay in processing invoices in respect of IFO Nouveta Limited.

8. On 9th November 2022, he was issued with two show cause letters. The first related to alleged failure to seek approvals before engaging JamboPay while prospecting for business from Kenya Railways Corporation and allegedly exposing the Respondent to reputational risk by dropping Nouveta Limited. The second related to alleged delay in processing Nouveta Limited invoices for seven months. He requested for the investigations report but the Respondent declined to furnish him.

9. Nonetheless, he responded to the show cause letters through his letter dated 16th November 2022, demonstrating that the said allegations were baseless. Subsequently, he was invited to a disciplinary hearing on 29th November 2022, which he attended but complained about the composition of the panel stating that the panel performed the roles of accuser and judge. Subsequently, his employment was terminated through a letter dated 21st December 2022.

10. He stated that the decision to terminate his employment was unlawful, wrongful, unfair and draconian, as there was no valid and fair reason, and that he was not accorded a fair hearing. He averred that the Respondent did not issue him with a certificate of service. He further stated that at the time of termination, he was earning a monthly salary of Kshs. 581,731.25.

11. On cross-examination she stated that he was employed as a County Relations Manager and rose through the ranks to become a Senior Manager, Special Projects and Partnerships in 2022. His roles included prospecting for business opportunities, including soliciting for funds and revenue collection solutions, and avoiding exposing the Bank to risk.

12. He admitted that he had no prior warnings or disciplinary cases, though he conceded that he received two warning letters related to financial management and overdrawing his account. He was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan in 2021. He admitted that he received show cause letters for Nouveta Limited and JamboPay. He admitted that he held the Nouveta invoices for seven months without processing them, which exposed the Bank to risk.

13. He stated that there was delayed feedback from the Finance Department but he never raised any complaint. He explained that the delays were caused by lack of policy in dealing with strategic partners. He stated that the documents at pages 39 to 59 were a draft under review and they were non-existent until approval by the Board. He admitted that he requested for the investigation report but still responded to the show cause letters without it. He was later invited to a disciplinary hearing, and he was allowed to be accompanied by another employee but attended alone. He did not object to the disciplinary panel.

14. He stated that the lack of the investigation report hindered him from preparing his defence, which was unfair. He stated that the minutes were not signed by him or the panel, and that he wrote emails requesting for the draft minutes to sign off but instead, he was served with a termination letter. He admitted that he was heard before the dismissal and on his appeal but maintained that the disciplinary process was unfair and the reason for the termination was not valid since the Managing Director, Mr. Paul Russo, had approved the establishment of the strategic partnership with the service provider.

15. He confirmed that he had received two warning letters but during his previous positions. He confirmed that he received a certificate of service at page 82 of the Respondent's bundle. He maintained that the disciplinary process was not fair at all, and that there was no policy for dealing with strategic partners.

16. On re-examination, CW1 stated that pages 1 to 15 of the supplementary bundle relate to reward and performance. He explained that he was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan due to a liquidity issue, while the show cause at page 11 related to an overdrawn account, causing his cheque to bounce.

17. He contended that no one was called to represent the Respondent during his disciplinary hearing and that is why he was requesting for the investigations report. He contended that the HR officer was merely taking minutes and not adducing evidence.

18. The Respondent called its Head of Employee Relations, Mr. Stephine Opiyo Obong'o, who testified as RW1. He adopted his Written Statement dated 31st July 2024 as evidence in chief and produced a bundle of 24 documents in the list dated 31st July 2024 as exhibits D.1 to D.24.

19. In brief, his testimony was that the Bank employed the Claimant as a Relationship Manager for County Governments from 3rd June 2014 and rose through the ranks to become Senior Manager, Special Projects and Partnerships on 13th July 2022. However, he was not meticulous in his work and had disciplinary and work issues, including a show cause letter dated 17th December 2018 for financial misconduct, a warning letter dated 8th January 2019, a show cause letter dated 16th September 2019, a final warning letter dated 4th October 2019, a warning letter dated 26th April 2021 for poor performance, and a six-month Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in 2021.

20. He stated that, on 2nd November 2022, the Bank issued a letter suspending the Claimant for 30 days, citing failure to follow internal bank procedures and delays in processing invoices for IFO Nouveta Limited.

21. On 9th November 2022, the Bank issued two show cause letters, one relating to failure to seek necessary approvals before engaging JamboPay while prospecting for business from Kenya Railways Corporation and exposing the Bank to reputational risk, and the other relating to delays in processing Nouveta Limited invoices. The Claimant responded on 16th November 2022. The response were unsatisfactory responses, and the Bank scheduled a disciplinary hearing for 29th November 2022 through an invitation dated 23rd November 2022.

22. The Claimant chose not to appear with a witness and reiterated his responses. On 21st December 2022, the Bank terminated his employment for negligence in invoice processing, carelessness, failure to consult with his manager, and engaging JamboPay without approval. The Claimant lodged an appeal dated 27th December 2022 and was invited for a hearing on 15th February 2023, which he acknowledged on 7th February 2023. Upon termination, he was issued with a certificate of service, which he acknowledged receipt of on 7th February 2023. RW1 stated that the Respondent followed the Employment Act and the Contract of Employment in terminating the Claimant's employment.

23. On cross-examination, RW1 stated that the Claimant faced two allegations: JamboPay and presentation of Nouveta invoices with Nairobi City County (NCC). As regards JamboPay, he stated that there was no proper procurement shown at page 40 of the Claimant's documents. He confirmed that the document at page 40 is an Agreement for JamboPay Web Tribe Ltd, while page 38 is a letter from the Managing Director to Web Tribe Ltd agreeing to collaboration. At page 68, the notice of the disciplinary hearing, stated that JamboPay had been onboarded in the bank panel of service providers.

24. He stated that there is an onboarding policy for service providers, including technology, but he had not produced it as exhibit. He admitted that the Claimant's bundle at page 5 indicated that JamboPay had been onboarded, but he was not aware of the process of onboarding. He agreed that onboarding comes after identifying the provider. Page 33 of the Claimant's bundle is a Non-Procurement Vendors Registration Form, and he stated that he did not know whether it was executed before or after identification of the provider. He stated that the bank incurred losses as a result of JamboPay service.

25. He referred to the show cause letters, on pages 8 and 9 of the Claimant's bundle, which stated that the bank was exposed to financial and reputational risk. He stated that the two letters are to be read together. He further referred to paragraph 4 of the disciplinary proceedings, on page 71 where the Claimant admitted that he never discussed with his line manager and never disclosed to the other partner Nouveta Ltd. He also referred to the claimant’s response to show cause letters, on page 5, where he stated that he informed the Head of Change.

26. He stated that the second allegation was about the Respondent, Nouveta Ltd and Nairobi City County. He contended that he knew when the bank signed the agreement with NCC but did not know when Nouveta started offering services. He stated that between June 2021 and March 2022 there was a guide for invoicing, but the same was not filed. He stated that he had not filed the investigation report, but the show cause letter detailed the information. He stated that the three parties pay arrangement was new in the bank but he could not confirm that.

27. Pages 18 and 20 are emails by the Claimant requesting for documents, but he could not confirm whether the two documents are emails, as they do not show the thread of correspondences. He referred to paragraph 16 of the Response, which stated that the Claimant did not show why he needed the investigation report. The panelists at the Claimant's hearing were Paul, HOD Operations; Maosa, Financial Controller; and Warkab, HOD Corporate Banking. The chairman was Paul, who led the proceedings. He stated that the document at pages 39 to 44 of the Claimant's bundle is an agreement not signed by the bank.

28. He explained that when the bank wants services, it advertises, shortlists and identifies the partner after vetting and thereafter gives a contract. He was not clear about the process after the contract, but every contract is for a specific transaction. The Nouveta invoice of Kshs. 10.9 million for services rendered was not paid and a dispute arose.

29. He explained that the procedure of invoice approval is simple: the user department receives the invoice from the provider and verifies whether services were rendered, then signs off and forwards to finance for payment. Page 9 of the claim, the show cause letter for the invoice of Kshs. 10.9 million, accused the Claimant of receiving the invoice from Nouveta and failing to sign it off, but kept it in his tray.

30. He stated that pages 33 to 37 are about the procurement process, which he did not understand, as it is within the procurement department. Page 71 to 72 of the Respondent's bundle, the disciplinary proceedings, paragraph 4, showed that Mr. Fred Kioko was not the line manager for the Claimant and a call to him was not enough. He maintained that the Claimant ought to have called his line manager. He stated that the bank does not deal with verbal allegations and the Claimant should have put it in writing.

31. He stated that the investigations report is produced after interviewing staff and clients and is a management report that cannot be given to the staff being accused. He contended that, only the relevant section is extracted and given through show cause letters. He clarified that the Claimant's case was prosecuted through investigation but the investigator is not supposed to attend the hearing. Finally, he stated that the Claimant never protested about the process.

Issues for Determination and analysis

32. After the close of the hearing and upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence and submissions, the following issues fell for determination: -

a. Whether the Claimant's employment was terminated fairly and lawfully.

b. Whether the Claimant merits the reliefs sought.

Unfair and unlawful termination

33. The Claimant contended that the termination of his employment was unfair and unlawful, but the Respondent was of a different view. Section 45(2) of the Employment Act provides that:

“(2)A termination of employment by an employer is unfair if the employer fails to prove—

(a) that the reason for the termination is valid;

(b) that the reason for the termination is a fair reason—

(i) related to the employees conduct, capacity or compatibility; or

(ii) based on the operational requirements of the employer; and

(c) that the employment was terminated in accordance with fair procedure.”

34. The above law has its roots from the International Labour Organization convention 158 on termination of employment specifically Article 4 and 7 which I have copied below:

“Article 4 – the employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct or the operational requirement requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service.

Article 7 – The employment of a worker shall not be terminated for reason related to the worker’s conduct or performance before he is provided an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made, unless the employer cannot be expected to provide this opportunity.”

35. The foregoing provisions indicates the two key determinants of unfair or unlawful termination, being substantive fairness and procedural fairness. The former refers to the validity of the reason or reasons upon which the termination is grounded while the latter entails the steps followed before making the decision to terminate including the fair opportunities availed to the employee to defend himself/herself.

Reason for the termination herein

36. The termination letter dated 16th December 2022 captured the reason for termination as follows:

“Friday, December 16, 2022

Jumba, Mr. Kelvin Ligina

Staff No. 1003333

Finance: Change Management & Integration Department

Dear Kelvin,

RE: TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

Reference to your suspension from duty through our letter dated 2nd November 2022, show cause letters dated 9th November 2022, your responses dated 16th November 2022 and the Disciplinary Hearing which you attended on Tuesday, 29th November 2022. We are satisfied that your decisions failed to meet expectations as a senior employee of the Bank. We note that you made unilateral decisions without consultation with your line manager and/or escalation while engaging JamboPay as a technology partner while prospecting for a business opportunity involving deployment of an automated and integrated revenue collection solution for Kenya railway Corporation after dropping Nouveta Ltd even though JamboPay had not been on-boarded in the Bank’s Panel through a proper procurement process at the time. We further note that you delayed the processing of Invoice IFO Nouveta Ltd for a period of 7 months thereby occasioning a loss of Kshs.10.7 M due to your gross negligence in delaying to present the invoices for processing. The specific findings are as follows:

You were negligent in carrying out your responsibilities and as a result, the Bank lost Kshs.10.9 Mn due to delayed processing of invoices for over seven months.

Your conduct was a demonstration of carelessness in handling your duties and responsibilities which is contrary to what is expected of you as a senior employee of the Bank charged with making critical decisions as expected by the nature of your role. This exposed the Bank to reputational as well as financial loss.

You failed to seek appropriate consultation with your line manager to make appropriate decisions which led to failure in your responsibilities.

You admitted having engaged JamboPay without consultation with your line manager and without following procurement process contrary to what would be expected of your making such important decision.

Your conduct in relation to the above exposed the Bank to reputational risk as well as financial loss of Kshs.10.7 M thereby casting doubt on your professionalism and as a result, the Bank has lost confidence in you. A decision has therefore been made to TERMINATE your services with the Bank from employment with effect from the date of this letter.

You will be paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice upon completion of the required exit procedures. Please arrange to clear your indebtedness with us as outlined below on outstanding loans and surrender all items constituting our property in your possession including keys, documents, the staff Identity Card among others to your line Manager.

Yours sincerely,

ROGERS L. MUNGUMI

DIRECTOR – HUMAN RESOURCES

cc. Ag. Managing Director

Director, Finance and Strategy

Head, Change Management & Integration

Receipt acknowledged by: (Jumba, Mr. Kelvin Ligina) Date: 21.12.2022”

37. The reasons cited for the termination above can be summarized into negligent, careless or improper performance of duty, which was the claimant’s duty under his contract to have performed carefully and properly. Section 44(4)(c) of the Employment Act entitles our employer to dismiss an employee if;

“(c) an employee willfully neglects to perform work which it was his duty to perform, or if he carelessly and improperly performs any work which from its nature it was his duty, under his contract, to have performed carefully and properly.”

38. RW1 testified that the Claimant held Nouveta Limited invoices for seven months without processing them, exposing the Bank to a revenue loss of approximately Kshs. 10.9 million. RW1 further testified that the Claimant engaged JamboPay as a technology partner while prospecting for business from Kenya Railways Corporation without seeking internal approvals and without JamboPay having been onboarded through a proper procurement process. It was alleged that vide his letter dated 19th July 2022, the claimant acknowledged that he solely made the decision of on-boarding JamboPay without prior approval from the respondent.

39. The Claimant denied any wrong doing and stated that the delay in processing the Nouveta Limited invoices was caused by the delay in concluding contracts between the Respondent, Nairobi City County and Nouveta Limited, which in turn led to delay by Nairobi City County to make any payment to the bank. He stated that he consulted with the Financial Controller Mr. Lawrence Aswani who advised that the bank could not pay anything until the contracting was done and finances received. The claimant further stated that the arrangement was the first revenue sharing arrangement for the Respondent and there was no policy in place on how invoices from strategic partners would be handled.

40. As regards, the engagement of JamboPay, the claimant contended that it was not a one-man job, stating that through a letter dated 3rd June 2021 the Managing Director, had approved the same. The letter by the respondent’s Managing Director dated 3rd June 2021 stated as follows:

“June 3, 2021

Chief Executive Officer

Webtribe Limited

View Park Towers, 12th Floor

Nairobi

Dear Danson,

RE: PROPOSED NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA WEBTRIBE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

I refer to your letter dated May 28th, 2021 and to recent meetings between Webntribe and NBK Teams and advise that the Bank is agreeable to partnering with Wentribe Limited to jointly collaborate to create and convert value propositions with strong commercial and social impact viability, coupled with digital platform/service deliver and support for customers.

In this regard, I have directed the establishment of a cross-functional NBK Team to work with you and the Webtribe Team to determine viable proposition/product offerings inclusive of internal/external governance requirements, business case(s) development, relevant documentation sign-offs, go-to market considerations and timelines.

The proposition development will start with the Blank Tape Levy Collection opportunity spelt out in your aforementioned letter as we mutually source for other ventures.

A representative from my office will reach out to you to start off engagements forthwith.

I look forward to the establishment of a viable and mutually beneficial partnership between our organizations.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Russo

MANAGING DIRECTOR”

41. The claimant further stated that he engaged the Head of Change, Mr. Fred Kioko, who gave the go-ahead to drop Nouveta Limited and engage JamboPay in the KRC deal. He further explained that the process of onboarding had not been completed because after securing the partnership there was still the formalization process to be done by filling forms that would require approvals all through to the MD. He produced the letter dated 3rd June 2021 by the MD at page 38 of his bundle to support his defence. He also produced a Non-Disclosure Agreement at pages 39 to 44 and a Non-Procurement Registration Form for Vendors at pages 33 to 37 which were pending signatures by the respondent.

42. The burden of proof shifted to respondent when the claimant denied the allegations and requested for the investigations report and witnesses. The respondent did not adduce any evidence to prove that a contract had already been signed and money received but the claimant withheld the invoices by Nouveta Limited. It also did adduce any evidence to rebut the claimant’s evidence that the MD had authorized the strategic partnership with Jambopay; that he consulted the Head of Change about the onboarding of Jambopay; that there was no policy for onboarding strategic partners; that the procurement policy was inapplicable to strategic partnerships; and that the process of onboarding had not yet been formally completed.

43. The respondent should have called the investigator to produce the investigation report, and officers from the procurement and finance departments to rebut the claimant’s allegations. It also never called the persons named by the claimant in his correspondences and evidence to deny his allegation. The respondent simply treated the claimant’s explanations as admission to the charges and dismissed all the justifications he gave for the delay in processing the Nouveta’s invoices and the business decision he made to engage JamboPay as a strategic partner in KRC business venture.

44. The failure by the respondent to produce as an exhibit, the investigation report or at least an extract thereof, means that it was non-existent or it contained adverse information against the respondent. It was the basis of taking disciplinary action against the claimant without which, the alleged offence of failure to process invoices for Nouveta Limited for seven months, and onboarding of Jambopay as a strategic partner without approval by the respondent has not been not proved on a balanced of probabilities.

45. The employer cannot prove an allegation by simply saying I have an investigation report which implicates an employee. The employer must adduce evidence to substantiate the allegations in the investigations report and the only way to do so is by calling witnesses including the investigator. As highlighted above, the respondent failed to do so and I hold that Respondent has not proved on a balance of probabilities that it had valid reasons for terminating the claimant’s contract of employment.

Procedure

46. Section 45(2)(c) of the Employment Act places on the employer the burden of proving that the termination of the employment contract was done in accordance with fair procedure. Section 41 of the Employment Act the sets out the following mandatory disciplinary procedure:-

“(1) Subject to section 42(1), an employer shall, before terminating the employment of an employee, on the grounds of misconduct, poor performance or physical incapacity explain to the employee, in a language the employee understands, the reason for which the employer is considering termination and the employee shall be entitled to have another employee or a shop floor union representative of his choice present during this explanation.

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Part, an employer shall, before terminating the employment of an employee or summarily dismissing an employee under section 44(3) hear and consider any representations which the employee may on the grounds of misconduct or poor performance, and the person, if any, chosen by the employee within subsection (1), make.”

47. In Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui [2019] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held as follows:-

“Four elements must thus be discernible for the procedure to pass muster:

(i) an explanation of the grounds of termination in a language understood by the employee;

(ii) the reason for which the employer is considering termination;

(iii) entitlement of an employee to the presence of another employee of his choice when the explanation of grounds of termination is made;

(iv) hearing and considering any representations made by the employee and the person chosen by the employee.”

48. In the instant case, the Claimant was served with a suspension letter dated 2nd November 2022 and thereafter two show cause letters dated 9th November 2022. The letters set out the allegations against him in detail and he responded to the show cause letters through a letter dated 16th November 2022. His request for copy of the Investigations report was declined and instead, he was invited to a disciplinary hearing through a letter dated 23rd November 2022. He was allowed to be accompanied by a fellow employee, but he attended alone.

49. He was heard by the disciplinary panel and his representations were considered before the decision was reached to terminate his employment. He was thereafter afforded an appeal hearing on 15th February 2023 before a separate panel and the decision to terminate was upheld.

50. However, the Claimant complained that he was denied the investigations report, which hindered him from preparing his defence. He also complained that the disciplinary panel performed the roles of accuser and judge, and that the minutes were not signed. RW1 testified that the investigations report is a management report that cannot be given to the staff being accused and that only the relevant section can be extracted and given through show cause letters.

51. An employer cannot be allowed to tell his employee “I have investigated you and the investigations report implicates you. Come and defend yourself but I am not sharing the report with you because it is for the management only. I am also not calling the investigator or any other person as my witness.” That is what the respondent did to the claimant herein. Was that procedure fair?

52. Section 3(a) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act provides that:

“Where an administrative action is likely to adversely affect the right or a fundamental freedom of any person, the administrator shall give the person affected by the decision –

(a) Prior and adequate notice of the nature and the reason for the proposed administrative action.

(b) Information, materials and evidence to be relied upon in making the decision or taking the administrative action.”

53. In Ol Pajeta Ranching Limited v David Wanjau Muhoro, the Court of Appeal held that:

“The respondent before the re-scheduled disciplinary hearing requested the appellant to furnish him with a copy of the audit report so as to sufficiently prepare for his defence as is envisaged by the principles of fair hearing. Fairness in the circumstances would inform that the respondent be supplied with the allegations against him in sufficient detail to adequately prepare for a defence. The appellant’s CEO testified that he attempted to furnish the respondent with the same on the hearing date but the respondent rejected it. Obviously, the audit report would have made no impact as there was no time for the respondent to amply prepare. It was merely tendered to the respondent as a technical formality. There was no reason given as to why the respondent could not have been supplied with a copy much earlier and in good time. As rightly found by the learned trial Judge, no evidence was placed before court to show that the respondent had been issued with a charge(s) of the specific allegations that he was required to answer during the hearing. Going in for the hearing, it is discernible from the record that the respondent only knew in general terms, the allegations he was to face and counter. That coupled with the fact that he had no knowledge of the audit findings, he had no chance to advance his defence. In the circumstances, therefore it cannot be said that the termination process was fair.”

54. In this case, RW1 confirmed that there was an investigations report that formed the basis of the allegations against the claimant and that it was deliberately withheld from the claimant because it was only meant for the Management. He further stated that only extracts of the report can be supplied to the employee, but he gave no reason why such extract was not supplied to the claimant to mount his defence.

55. Guided by the above decision of the Court of appeal, and the provisions of section 3 of the FAA Act, I find that the failure to provide the claimant with the said document rendered the disciplinary process unfair.

56. The foregoing conclusion coupled with the fact that the respondent did not prove that the claimant negligently or willfully failed to process invoices for Nouveta Limited for seven months, and that he onboarded Jambopay as a strategic partner without prior approval from the respondent, I find that the termination was unfair.

Reliefs

57. Having found that the termination of the Claimant's employment was unfair, the Claimant is entitled to declaration that the termination was unfair within the meaning of section 45 of the Employment Act. Accordingly, he is entitled to relief under section 49(1) of the Act, namely, salary in lieu of notice and compensation for unfair termination. His contract provided for one-month notice before termination and therefore I award salary in lieu of notice for one month being Kshs. 581,731.25. Besides, the respondent offered to pay the same in the termination letter.

58. I also award him six months compensation for the unfair termination being Kshs. 3,490,387.50, considering his long service of eight years and the fact that he never contributed to the termination through proven misconduct.

59. The prayer for a certificate of service is moot, as the Claimant admitted during cross-examination that he received a certificate of service on 7th February 2023. However, the prayer for costs is granted since costs follow the events.

Conclusion

60. I have found that the termination of the claimant’s employment was unfair within the meaning of section 45 of the Employment Act. I have found that the claimant is entitle to the reliefs sought. Consequently, I enter judgment for the claimant in the following terms:

(a) Declaration that the termination of the claimant’s employment was unfair.

(b) Award of Kshs. 4,072,118.75 subject to statutory deductions.

(c) Costs and interest at court rates from the date of this judgment.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026.

ONESMUS MAKAU

JUDGE

Appearance:

Muli for Claimant

Wanjiru for Respondent