https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1604

Guracha v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) & another (Civil Appeal E422 of 2024) [2026] KECA 1604 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1604 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nairobi Civil Appeal E422 of 2024 K M'Inoti, EC Mwita & B Ongaya, JJA July 31, 2026 Between Adan Moro Guracha Appellant and Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (Eacc) 1st Respondent Halakhe D Waqo 2nd Respondent (An appeal from the Judgment of the Employment & Labour Relations Court at Nairobi (Nduma, J.) dated 24th August, 2023inELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018) Judgment 1.This appeal arises from the Judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court, the ELRC, (Nduma, J, as he then was) delivered on 24th August, 2023. The appellant, Adan Moro Guracha, had initiated a suit at the ELRC against the Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and Halakhe Waqo, alleging unlawful or unfair termination from his position at the EACC by the letter of summary dismissal dated 29th September, 2017. In the amended memorandum of claim dated 12th February, 2021, he pleaded that his dismissal was malicious, unfair, unlawful, null and void because it was triggered by his investigations into senior officials, including the 2nd respondent, ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018regarding various scandals or malpractices. He sought reinstatement to the position of Investigations Officer II at a monthly salary of Kshs. 178,090/= from October 2017 without loss of benefits; damages for unlawful and unfair termination at 12 months’ salary thus Kshs. 2, 172,000/=, damages for discrimination, pecuniary damages, costs of the suit and interest until payment in full. 2.In an amended statement of response to claim dated 15th March, 2021, the respondents maintained that the appellant had a poor disciplinary record, including habitual absenteeism, and was summarily dismissed after following due process as mandated by the Employment Act and the EACC Human Resource (HR) Manual. The respondents contested the inclusion of the 2nd respondent in the proceedings, asserting that he was legally protected from personal liability in carrying out his duties as the CEO of the EACC. They denied the appellant’s particulars of malice and discrimination and averred that his conduct of absenteeism without leave or lawful cause amounted to gross misconduct. They urged that the appellant was heard before he was summarily dismissed and was therefore not entitled to any of the orders sought. The respondents prayed that the appellant’s amended memorandum of claim be dismissed with costs. 3.The ELRC evaluated the parties’ evidence and written submissions and delivered judgment in the matter on 24th August, 2023. The trial court found that the 1st respondent failed ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018to prove it had valid reasons to summarily dismiss the appellant from employment, thereby failing the fairness test under section 45(1) and (2) of the Employment Act. Conversely, the ELRC observed that the appellant had, in part, contributed to his predicament, particularly regarding his work ethic, punctuality and availability at the workplace. Further, the long passage of time since the appellant had been separated from the institution made it unsuitable to reinstate him to his previous employment. The trial court went on to award the appellant one month's notice pay, six months’ salary in compensation for the unlawful dismissal, interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full, and costs of the suit. 4.The appellant is aggrieved by that decision and filed a memorandum of appeal dated 16th May, 2024. He raises 15 grounds of appeal reproduced verbatim as follows:1.That the Honourable trial Judge erred in law and fact in failing to grant the appellant any of his key prayers of reinstatement and/or commensurate damages and/or other reliefs.2.That the Honourable trial Judge erred in law and fact in disregarding to determine seven of the eleven issues as raised by the appellant and settling for his own or the respondent’s two issues for determination.3.That the Honourable trial Judge erred in law and fact by disregarding to declare, accordingly, the gross malice/invalidity of the grounds of dismissal and gross violations of applicable laws in arriving at the summary dismissal.4.ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018That the Honourable trial Judge erred in law and fact in failing to find and declare, accordingly, that one of the clause/grounds of the summary dismissal is not only grossly malicious and offending to the appellant, but strange and unsupported by any allegations/show cause against the appellant on record and therefore suspicious, null and void.5.That the Honourable trial Judge erred in law and fact by disregarding and failing to declare, accordingly, that the appellant’s exclusion/denial of an opportunity to be heard, present evidence and exculpate himself, at all of the respondent’s disciplinary stages (before/during main and appeal hearings) was another grave violation and an illegality.6.That the Honourable trial Judge erred in law and fact by disregarding and failing to declare, accordingly, that the summary dismissal by the secretary to the Commission or CEO without the approval of the Commission was an illegality, null and void.7.That the Honourable trial Judge erred in law and fact and abused his discretion by suppressing/ignoring the appellant’s evidence on glaring andoverwhelming acts of victimization, discrimination, gross malice before, during and after the summary dismissal and failing to declare the same accordingly.8.ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018That the Honourable trial Judge erred in law and fact in his opinion or finding that the appellant did not come across as a person who did not contribute to his predicaments, casting aspersions “on his probably poor work ethics in punctuality and availability”, without giving any proven evidential and or factual basis on record as a ground for denying his important reinstatement prayer.9.That the Honourable trial Judge erred in law and fact in substituting his own opinions/reasons for general sweeping allegations and or allegations of discrimination by the appellant against the respondents as a ground for denying the reinstatement prayer. 10.That the Honourable trial Judge erred in law and fact in giving the long passage of time since separation from the respondent as a ground for denying the reinstatement prayer. 11.That the Honourable trial Judge erred in law and fact by failing to comprehend and or misdirecting himself on the allegations which were not the alleged proven grounds of dismissal, consequently making numerous, contradicting and significant factual errors in his judgment, which further undermined the appellant’s prayers.12.ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018That the Honourable trial Judge erred in law and fact in disregarding the appellant’s evidence on the unlawful actions in regards to the respondents’ interferences/blocking of the claimant from several unlawful employment/business opportunities and even membership in professional associations after dismissal, both in the national and county governments, which ought to be considered in allowing the prayers of reinstatement and or commensurate general/special damages.13.That the Honourable trial Judge erred in law and fact in disregarding the appellant’s weighty and special circumstances adduced before the court, all directly and indirectly attributable to the respondents’ willful, malicious and unlawful actions, in not allowing the appellant’s prayers.14.That the Honourable trial Judge erred in law, fact and abused his discretion in not considering that the gross violations of the appellant’s constitutional, employment and other inherent rights, through willful and awful actions even in post-dismissal, all on court records, far outweigh the extraneous considerations he adduced himself in denying the appellant his prayers.15.ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018That the Honourable trial Judge erred in law and fact in ignoring/failing to grant the appellant lawfully entitled terminal dues, including baggage allowance, leave/payments in lieu of leave days and other allowances already earned before termination. 5.In summary, the appellant prays that this Court allows the appeal, enhance and award the remedies as prayed for before the trial court, reinstate him to his former employment, or order compensation for his full emoluments until his retirement age, in lieu of the prayers sought. 6.The appellant filed submissions dated 17th September, 2024, condensing his arguments to issues of invalid dismissal, procedural violations, discrimination and victimization, and reinstatement. He maintained that the trial court made numerous omissions and failed to address key issues. 7.On his dismissal from employment being invalid, the appellant urged that the grounds for his dismissal, primarily absenteeism, were malicious and unfounded. He asserted that his absences were for approved leave or certified medical reasons, which should not constitute grounds for dismissal under Section 46(b) of the Employment Act. In this regard, he cited the Supreme Court Petition 36 of 2019, Samuel Gitau Gichuru v Package Insurance Brokers. The appellant further submitted that he was denied a fair hearing, was not provided with adequate notifications or the opportunity to defend himself, and that the ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018disciplinary process lacked proper investigation. That the HR officers were never called upon to clarify the leave documents or the hospital sick-off notes, and further, there is no indication of verbal or written warning in the respondents’ response. The appellant also claimed that the 2nd respondent created a conflict of interest by unilaterally bypassing mandatory oversight provisions. 8.The appellant stated that on the three occasions he was granted sick-offs, the respondents unfairly and maliciously issued show- cause notices to him. That he was denied training and promotions, and that the EACC had maliciously interfered with his subsequent job prospects through adverse comments. That this violates Article 36(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, on freedom of association. He submitted that the misdirection on the allegations deemed unproven or vacated by the respondents formed the basis of the trial court’s insinuation of the appellant’s probable poor work ethic and contribution to his predicaments. That the trial court’s technical considerations should not have overshadowed the gross injustice and well-deserved prayers for reinstatement and commensurate compensation. 9.The appellant urged that reinstatement is the only just remedy given his 16 years of public service, lack of alternative income, and the irreparable damage to his career caused by the respondents. In support of his appeal, he further cited: Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission & 5 others v Henry Morara ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018Ongwenyi & 3 others (Civil Appeal 229 of 2017); Eng. Michael Sistu Mwaura Kamau v EACC & 4 others (Civil Appeal 102 of 2016); Michael Keya Ngamiah v The Inspector General of National Police Service & 3 others (Kisumu ELRC Petition 39 of 2016); Maxwell Onduso v National Police Service & 3 others (Nairobi ELRC Petition 96 of 2020); and Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority & 3 others (Supreme Court Petition 3 of 2018). 10.The respondents’ submissions are dated 4th November, 2024. They focused their submissions on five issues, thus: whether the appellant is entitled to the remedy of reinstatement; whether the summary dismissal was justified and procedurally fair; whether the appellant is entitled to damages for discrimination and pecuniary damages; whether the appellant is entitled to terminal dues; and in the alternative, whether the appellant is entitled to emoluments from the time of dismissal to the date of retirement. 11.On the issue of reinstatement, the respondents submitted that reinstatement is unsuitable due to the appellant’s history of absenteeism, which constituted gross misconduct under Section 44(4) (a) of the Employment Act. Secondly, the significant passage of time (over six years) since dismissal is more than the three years imposed by Section 12(3) (vii) of the ELRC Act. That an order of reinstatement in this case would be in excess of jurisdiction as held in Sotik Highlands Tea Estates Limited v Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018(Civil Appeal 23 of 2017) [2017] eKLR. Lastly, the strained relationship between the parties makes it impracticable to reinstate the employment relationship. It was the respondents’ submission that the superior court exercised discretion judiciously in declining to grant the order of reinstatement. That the court considered the factors set out in Section 49(4) (b)(c)(d)(e)(k) and (m) of the Employment Act, relevant to this case. 12.Regarding the grounds for dismissal and procedural fairness, the respondents submitted that the appellant’s summary dismissal was justified under Section 44(4)(a) of the Employment Act due to unauthorized absenteeism. They argued that the disciplinary process was procedurally fair, noting the appellant received show-cause notices and an opportunity to be heard. They cited this Court’s holding in Kenya Revenue Authority v Menginya Salim Murgani (Civil Appeal 108 of 2009) [2010] eKLR that fairness of a hearing is not determined solely by its oral nature. The respondents urged this Court to dismiss the allegations of bias, ulterior motive and conflict of interest as being unfounded accusations against the 2nd respondent. While acknowledging a procedural error regarding the 2nd respondent’s role in conveying the committee’s decision, they urged this Court to apply the "absurd result principle" to avoid legal complications. This principle was restated in the case of Law Society of Kenya v Kenya Revenue Authority & another (Petition 39 of 2017) [2017] eKLR. 13.ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018Further, the respondents submitted that the appellant’s rights under Article 47 of the Constitution were substantially observed during the disciplinary process, as reflected in the report of the Disciplinary Committee. That the appellant’s invocation of Article 50 on the rights of an accused person is misplaced as it is inapplicable to disciplinary proceedings (see Judicial Service Commission v Gladys Boss Shollei & another (Civil Appeal 50 of 2014) [2014] eKLR). 14.It was the respondents’ submission that claims of discrimination, including exclusion from training, lack of promotion and alleged ill-treatment, are unsubstantiated and were correctly rejected by the superior court. They contended that the case of Samuel Gitau Gichuru (supra) relied on by the appellant is distinguishable because the appellant did not have a debilitating condition and there was therefore no injury or extent of incapacity to investigate. Further, the appellant did not provide any evidence of a negative recommendation by the Commission to other institutions. They argued that difficulty in finding alternative employment is an irrelevant consideration in determining compensation, as held in Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui (Civil Appeal 127 of 2015) [2019] eKLR. 15.ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018On the issue of terminal dues, the respondents asserted that the appellant was fully compensated for previous transfers and is not entitled to further baggage or relocation allowances. They submitted that under Section 18(4) of the Employment Act, an employee, upon dismissal, is entitled to any money, allowances and benefits due to him up to the date of dismissal. That therefore, the appellant cannot claim baggage allowance or relocation costs after dismissal or termination from employment. They also refuted the claim for additional leave pay, stating that all leave entitlements were exhausted. 16.As regards the appellant’s claim for future earnings, the respondents argued that there is no legal basis for awarding compensation for anticipated income until retirement (see D K Njagi Marete v Teachers Service Commission (Civil Appeal 316 of 2013) [2020] eKLR). The respondents further urged this Court not to disturb the trial court’s award of six months’ salary compensation, as the same was adequate and fair. 17.When this appeal came up for plenary hearing before us on 25th March, 2026, the appellant appeared in person, while Ms. Kibogy, learned counsel appeared for the respondent. Both parties restated their respective submissions and briefly highlighting their submissions. 18.The appellant highlighted that he had been in court for 8 years, 6 at the ELRC and 2 at this Court. He reiterated that his ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018dismissal was unlawful and unfair because the reasons had not been genuine, he had not cross-examined the crucial witnesses at the disciplinary hearing because he was locked out, and, the Commission had not approved the summary dismissal as was expected. He stated that he had been discriminated in training or promotion opportunities as per his internal memo dated 6th September 2017 addressed to the Deputy Director, HR stating that he had been left out of the training need request for financial year 2017/2018 which had been forwarded to the HR for all officers of the Lower Coast Region in early August 2017 and by which memo he was forwarding his training needs for financial year 2017/2018 and attaching thereto a table of his skills gaps and a list of officers competence skills, training programs, and training provider. 19.In her response, Ms. Kibogy highlighted that the respondent had not interfered with the appellant’s chances for alternative employment after the summary dismissal because he had been invited for interviews but he had not been successful as no job offer was given to him. Further, the ELRC had properly found that the appellant had contributed to his predicament and while finding the termination was unfair, the 6 months’ salary compensation awarded was consistent with factors for consideration as prescribed in section 49 of the Employment Act. 20.This is a first appeal. Our jurisdiction as a first appellate court was set out in Selle & another v Associated Motor Boat Co. ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018Ltd & others (1968) EA 123, in which the Court of Appeal held that the first appellate court has to reconsider, evaluate and assess the evidence tendered before the trial court and make its own conclusions in the matter. An allowance should be made in view that the trial court and not this Court actually had the benefit of taking the evidence and seeing the witnesses. 21.While parties have made extensive submissions on whether the summary dismissal was unfair, we are satisfied that the issue does not fall for determination in this appeal because the ELRC already found for the appellant that the summary dismissal was unfair. In absence of a cross-appeal to challenge that finding, we are satisfied that the findings by the ELRC were consistent with the evidence on record. In particular, the record shows that the appellant did not have an opportunity to cross-examine crucial witnesses at the disciplinary hearing. The ELRC correctly held as follows:“90.The manner in which the 1st respondent conducted the disciplinary hearing from the minutes produced by R.W.2 left a lot to be desired and the Court is in agreement with C.W.1 that he was not given adequate opportunity to fairly defend himself. The Court finds that the entire disciplinary process was flawed and did not satisfy the provisions of section 41 of the Employment Act, and the rules of natural justice. The net result of this flawed process was to deny C.W.1 fair hearing in violation of section ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 201841 and 45 of the Employment Act, and the 1st respondent opportunity to find out the truth so as to establish a valid reason to summarily dismiss C.W.1 from employment in terms of section 43(1) and (2) as read with section 44 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007.” 22.We have considered the grounds of appeal and the parties’ respective submissions and sieve out the pertinent issues for determination as follows: whether the appellant established liability for discrimination and award of damages in that respect; whether the appellant was entitled to an order of reinstatement with back payment and without loss of accrued benefits; whether the award of 6 months’ salaries for unfair termination was just; whether the appellant was entitled to any other relief as was prayed for; and, whether the appeal should be allowed with the remedies as prayed for. 23.In declining to find for the appellant on the claim for discrimination, the ELRC stated as follows,“101.C.W.1 made sweeping allegations of discrimination by his employer which allegations were not satisfactorily proved by the claimant. Indeed, the court finds that the ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018allegation of discrimination by the C.W.1 against the 1st respondent have not been proved on a balance of probabilities.” 24.In the amended memorandum of claim, the appellant stated the issues in dispute as unlawful or unfair termination of employment; compensation for unlawful termination of employment; and, reinstatement. We observe that alleged discrimination was not one of the issues pleaded to be in dispute. Nevertheless, at paragraph 17 of the amended memorandum of claim the appellant pleaded that he had sensitive information against the 2nd respondent and further pleaded unlawful termination on account that he was terminated for conducting investigations that had implicated the 2nd respondent. He then pleaded particulars of unlawful and unfair termination of employment as a subheading and below which he stated a further subheading as particulars of discrimination by the respondents thus: discrimination on the basis of age; terminating the appellant on the basis of arbitrary and invalid grounds; failing to treat the appellant like all other employees in the organization; issuing the notice to show cause without carrying out the relevant investigations; exposing the appellant to ridicule on account of informing his colleagues of relieving him of his duties prematurely; violating the appellant’s constitutional rights to fair labour practices; failure to follow the 1st respondent’s human resource policies in dealing with the ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018appellant; and, unlike other employees, failing to protect the appellant against the 2nd respondent who used his position of authority to willfully and deliberately target the claimant as part of a personal vendetta. 25.It is trite that litigants are bound by their respective pleadings. We have carefully examined the substance and structural frame of the amended memorandum of claim and we observe that discrimination as pleaded by the appellant was not urged as an autonomous limb of claim but was stated as an elaboration of the claim for unlawful and unfair termination. Further, the particulars as urged remained broad as to require or call for specific details because while styled as “particulars of discrimination” they fell short of facts calling for evidentiary prove. For instance, alleged violation of the right to fair labour practices; alleged differential treatment unlike other employees; alleged exposure to ridicule upon premature disclosure of termination of employment; alleged discrimination on the basis of age; and, alleged breach of 1st respondent’s human resource policies are all matters that would require better and further details of facts to constitute “particulars” as properly pleaded. 26.The appellant relied upon his own internal memo to suggest that he had been treated differently on identification and forwarding of training needs or gaps and hence denial of promotional opportunities. However, he did not provide relevant details in the amended memorandum of claim in that respect together with the ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018relevant evidence to show if he was in similar circumstances with the other employees and the resultant prejudice, if any. The appellant therefore failed to provide sufficient facts and evidence of comparable employees who were treated differently in relation to the allegations he made about denial of training and promotion. We are satisfied that there were no sufficiently pleaded facts and then relevant evidence to establish discrimination on account of denial of training and promotional opportunities or other disadvantageous treatment. 27.To establish discrimination, the appellant ought to have provided concrete comparators by demonstrating that he was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees who, unlike the appellant, enjoyed the training and promotion opportunities. If the appellant had established a prima facie case as he alleged, the burden of proof would then shift to the 1st respondent as the employer under section 5(7) of the Employment Act to prove that the differential treatment was justified. The record shows that the claimant had not established such prima facie case. 28.The Supreme Court in Simon Gitau Gichuru v. Package Insurance Brokers Ltd [2021] KESC 12 (KLR), expounded on the standards for direct and indirect discrimination. The Court clarified that proving indirect discrimination focuses on the outcome, how a neutral practice disproportionately disadvantages a protected group compared to others, while, direct discrimination explicitly requires a causal link to the ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018attribute in question. The Supreme Court further held that establishing discrimination requires a comparison where a person is treated differently from others in similar positions based on prohibited grounds, thus:a.Discrimination was failure to treat all persons equally when no reasonable distinction could be found between those favoured and those not favoured. Not all cases of distinction amounted to discrimination. Discrimination could be said to have occurred where a person was treated differently from other persons who were in similar positions on the basis of one of the prohibited grounds like race, sex disability or due to unfair practice and without any objective and reasonable justification.b.Direct discrimination involved treating someone less favourably because of their possession of an attribute such as race, sex, religion compared to someone without that attribute in the same circumstances. Indirect or subtle discrimination involved setting a condition or requirement which was a smaller proportion of those with the attribute were able to comply with, without a reasonable justification. 29.We are therefore satisfied that as found by the ELRC, the appellant made sweeping allegations of discrimination and which ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018were not established by the required sufficient evidence including about comparator employees. The appellant’s ground of appeal urging for respondents’ liability for discrimination and award of damages in that respect was correctly declined by the ELRC. 30.Was the appellant entitled to an order of reinstatement with back payment and without loss of accrued benefits? The ELRC in declining to grant an order of reinstatement considered the strained relationship between the parties over a considerably short period of service from 1st January, 2015 to 29th September 2017 and the considerably long time that had lapsed. We are satisfied that the ELRC did not err in that consideration. As submitted for the respondents, the significant passage of time (over six years) since dismissal is more than the three years imposed by Section 12(3) (vii) of the ELRC Act. The section empowers the ELRC to order the reinstatement of an unfairly dismissed employee. However, this power is strictly limited to three years from the date of dismissal, and is subject to any conditions the Court deems fit to impose. 31.Under section 49(4) of the Act, reinstatement or re-engagement is a highly exceptional and discretionary remedy. The courts consider several strict conditions before granting reinstatement such as the practicability of reinstatement; the employee’s wishes; state of relationship between the employee and employer; and, the common law principle against enforcing specific ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018performance of contracts of personal service. While the appellant has not made out a case and submissions to meet the enumerated conditions, we are satisfied that the ELRC did not err in considering the lapsed 6 years since separation and the strained relationship demonstrated through numerous letters to show cause issued by the 1st respondent against the appellant. 32.Turning to the award of 6 months’ salary in damages, the governing factors are similarly prescribed in section 49 on grant of damages where the termination is unfair or unjustified. Some of the factors stated in section 49(4) of the Act include the length of the employee’s service, the mitigating or aggravating factors, ability of employer to find alternative employment, the employee's length of service with the employer, the conduct of the employee which to any extent caused or contributed to the termination, period employee would have served but for the termination, mitigation of loss by employee, and terminal benefits paid. 33.The ELRC considered the factors against the evidence that the claimant had found it difficult to secure alternative employment, the relatively short period that had been served of below three years, and the contribution by the appellant in view of the numerous complaints against him as per the several show cause letters on record. The Court awarded 6 months’ salary in damages for the unfair or unjustified termination. We are satisfied that the learned trial judge soundly exercised the ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018discretion and no material has been placed before us to justify our interference. The exercise of the discretion was consistent with section 49(4) as read with section 50 of the Act. Section 49(4) of the Act provides that in deciding whether to grant the remedies specified in subsections (1) and (3), the court is to take into account any or all of the listed factors. Accordingly, we find that the ELRC was entitled to take into account the predominant or overriding factors on record. 34.In Mbogo and another v. Shah [1968] EA 93 the East African Court of Appeal explained the circumstances under which an appellate court can or cannot interfere with the trial court’s exercise of judicial discretion. It was held that this Court will intervene if it is shown that the trial court misdirected itself on a point of law or fact; acted on a matter it ought not to have considered; failed to take into consideration material matters that it should have considered; or, arrived at a conclusion that was manifestly unfair or resulted in a miscarriage of justice. It was further held that this Court should not substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court merely because it would have reached a different conclusion on the same facts. We cannot interfere if the trial court exercised the discretion judicially in accordance with the rules of reason and justice as was not whimsical, or, the decision reached by the trial court was reasonably possible because it was based on the material and evidence on record. 35.ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018The appellant has failed to establish any of the grounds to justify our interference with the manner the ELRC exercised the judicial discretion in granting the 6 months’ salary as damages for the unfair termination. We cannot interfere because the ELRC exercised the discretion judicially taking due consideration of the applicable or relevant factors listed in section 49 of the Act. 36.The next issue for our determination is whether the appellant was entitled to any other relief as was prayed for. The residual reliefs for our consideration set out in the amended memorandum of claim are pecuniary damages and costs. Pecuniary damages are financial compensations awarded to cover quantifiable economic losses. They are as well referred to as special or liquidated damages. The trite law is that they must be specifically pleaded and then be strictly proved usually by relevant documents such as receipts, invoices and such like other relevant evidence. 37.We have re-examined and re-analysed the amended memorandum of claim dated 26th June, 2018 and we note that other than the prayer for pecuniary damages, there are no specifically pleaded facts on particulars of special damages and the quantifiable amount of money claimed in that respect. Parties have made their respective submissions about appellant’s future earnings and his terminal dues for transfers with respect to baggage or relocation allowances. We observe that such were matters not specifically pleaded and did not fall for determination ELRC Cause No. 1081 of 2018by the ELRC as well as this Court. Accordingly, there exists no basis for this Court to delve into a ground of appeal falling outside the scope of the appellant’s pleaded case and prayers made before the trial Court. 38.We have considered the employment dispute between the parties together with the background circumstances and each party will bear own costs of the appeal. 39.Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the appeal and order each party to bear own costs. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026.K. M’INOTIJUDGE OF APPEAL...................................E. C. MWITAJUDGE OF APPEAL...................................... B. ONGAYAJUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.SignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR