https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2254

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR** **RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU** **APPEAL NUMBER E047 OF 2025** **BETWEEN** DELAMERE ESTATES LIMITED ..............................................................APPELLANT **VERSUS** JANE CHEPKEMOI KUYIONI ............................................................ RESPONDENT [An Appeal from the Judgment of Honourable S. Soita S.R.M dated 12th August 2025, in Nakuru C.M.E.L.R.C Cause No. E206 of 2022 between the Parties herein] *Rika J* *Court Assistant: Emmanuel Kiprono* *\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_* *Agricultural Employers Association for the Appellant* *Mahida & Maina Advocates for the Respondent* *\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_* **JUDGMENT** 1. The Respondent filed Claim at the Trial Court for unfair termination. 2. She pleaded that she was employed by the Appellant as a herder, for 18 years. She last earned a monthly salary of Kshs. 8,874. 3. She stated that she was dismissed by the Appellant on 28th July 2022, after she was found aiding an attempt to sell 2 sheep, the property of the Appellant. 4. She alleged that her supervisor had instructed her to aid in selling the sheep, and her refusal would have amounted to insubordination. 5. She prayed the Trial Court to declare that termination was unfair, and grant her orders for compensation, notice and overtime, which she computed at Kshs. 2,263,081. 6. The Trial Court found that the Respondent was issued a letter to show cause on 25th July 2022. She was required to attend disciplinary hearing next day, 26th July 2022. The letter of dismissal issued on 28th July 2022. She was not accompanied by a representative of her choice. The Trial Court concluded also, that the Appellant did not give sufficient evidence, to justify its decision. On account of these procedural and substantive grounds, the Trial Court concluded that termination was unfair. 7. She was granted 1-month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 12,857; equivalent of 12 months’ salary in compensation for unfair termination at Kshs. 154,289; costs; and interest. 8. Her claim for overtime was declined. 9. The Appellant filed the Memorandum of Appeal dated 2nd September 2025, raising 4 Grounds of Appeal, summarized as follows: - 10. The Trial Court erred by disregarding the Appellant’s evidence. 11. The Trial Court erred by granting the Respondent notice, compensation and costs. 12. The Appellant states at Ground [g] of the Memorandum of Appeal, that the Trial Court erred by granting the Respondent annual leave, salary arrears, and certificate of service. 13. The Judgment and Decree on record indicate that the Respondent was granted notice, compensation, costs and interest, and no more. 14. The Appellant proposes that the Appeal is allowed, and the awards made in favour of the Respondent at the Trial, are substituted with an order dismissing her Claim in its totality, with costs to the Appellant. 15. Parties agreed that the Appeal is considered and determined on the strength of the Record of Appeal and Submissions filed by the Parties. **The Court Finds**: - 1. The only issue before Court is whether the Trial Court erred, by finding that termination of the Respondent’s contract was unfair, and by granting her notice and compensation. 2. The Court does not find any fault with the Trial Court’s finding that termination was unfair, on account of procedure. 3. The record indicates that the Respondent was issued a letter to show cause dated 25th July 2022. 4. She was suspended the same date. She was told to respond by 28th July 2022. She responded on 26th July 2022. 5. Without commenting on her response, she was advised on 27th July 2022, to attend disciplinary hearing, on 28th July 2022. 6. 28th July 2022, was the date initially given by the Appellant, by which the Respondent was supposed to have answered the letter to show cause. 7. The short notices, and the hearing on the date by which the Respondent was supposed to have given her reply to the letter to show cause, betrayed a prejudgment on the part of the Appellant. 8. The Appellant did not consider the response to the letter to show cause adequately or at all, and did not provide the Respondent adequate notice, to prepare for the hearing. It is also doubtful that the Appellant carried out proper investigations, within the 3 days it took, from the date of the call to show cause, to the date of the disciplinary hearing. 9. The Respondent does not appear to have been advised on her right to be accompanied to the disciplinary hearing by a colleague of her choice, or a trade union representative at the shopfloor level, if any. 10. Procedure did not conform to the minimum statutory standards of fairness, under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act. 11. The Trial Court considered the evidence of both Parties, in concluding that the Appellant did not establish valid reason to justify its decision against the Respondent. 12. It was common evidence that the Respondent was instructed by her supervisor Martin, to leave the 2 sheep with him. She obeyed the supervisor innocently, without knowing that he intended to steal the animals. 13. Martin was charged with stock theft. The Respondent was not. This evidence was common to both Parties, and the Court does not think that the Trial Court disregarded any of the Parties’ evidence. 14. It was not established by the Appellant that the Respondent, knowingly participated in the crime against her Employer, or Employer’s property. She appears from the Record of Appeal, to have been a gullible herdswoman, who was taken advantage of by her deceptive supervisor, and eventually dismissed by the Appellant, after 18 years’ toil, on account of her susceptibility. 15. She was an innocent herdswoman with 18 years‘ faithful service, who was instructed by her supervisor to leave 2 sheep to him. She would not be expected know why the supervisor was instructing her to leave 2 sheep to him. 16. It was not established that the Respondent acted without the instructions of a person, placed in authority over her by the Appellant. She had no reason to question the seemingly lawful instructions, issued by her supervisor. 17. The award of equivalent of 12 months’ salary in compensation for unfair termination, was in order, considering that the Respondent had over 18 years’ service, looking after the Respondent’s livestock, in grazing lands shared with dangerous wild animals, including lions and baboons. It was a moderate compensation, considering that she was not rewarded or recognized by the Respondent, for her 18 years of service. There were no other terminal benefits, extended to her, disclosed in the evidence of the Appellant. She left employment after 18 years, with only equivalent of 12 months’ salary in compensation, and 1-month salary in lieu of notice, courtesy of the Trial Court. She left without social security. **IT IS ORDERED**: - 1. **The Appeal is declined.** 2. **Costs of the Appeal to the Respondent.** Dated, signed and delivered electronically at Nakuru, under Rule 68[5] of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2024, this 30th day of July 2026. James Rika Judge