https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1687

Esendi v Petro Oil Kenya Ltd (Appeal E052 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1687 (KLR) (11 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1687 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa Appeal E052 of 2025 K Ocharo, J June 11, 2026 Between Humphrey Chava Esendi Appellant and Petro Oil Kenya Limited Respondent (Being an appeal against the judgment of Honourable E.M. Mwamuye SRM in Mombasa MCELRC Cause No. E 364 of 2023) Judgment 1.Contending that at all material times, he was an employee of the Respondent whose employment the Respondent terminated unfairly, the Appellant sued the Respondent in the above-mentioned suit, seeking various reliefs, thus;a.A declaration that he was unfairly dismissed from employment;b.Compensation for unfair termination, 12 months' salary, totalling KShs. 307,740/=c.Service pay for the years worked, KShs. 76,935/=d.Leave days earned but not taken, KShs. 15,000/=e.Payment in lieu of notice KShs. 51,290/=f.Salary for the month of April being, Kshs.25, 645/=g.Issuance of a certificate of service.h.Costs of the suit 2.The Respondent contested the Appellant’s claim via the Memorandum of Response dated 4th August, 2023. The Respondent acknowledged that the Appellant was its employee who was lawfully dismissed following two incidents of misconduct. Appellant’s case 3.The Appellant’s case in the lower court was that he was employed by the Respondent on a contractual basis for a term of twelve months, commencing on 8th December 2016. He stated that after the initial contract expired, he was not issued a renewal contract but continued to serve the Respondent in the same capacity for about seven years. 4.The Appellant stated that he worked as a Pump Attendant at the Respondent’s service stations at Likoni Ferry and Moi Avenue, Mombasa. He further stated that he attended a meeting at the Respondent’s offices on 20th March 2023 and was later issued with a summary dismissal letter dated 17th April 2023. 5.He stated that the reasons for his dismissal were that he had allegedly flouted the Respondent’s cash-handling procedures, resulting in a loss of Kshs. 17,000, and that he had accessed the service station office without authorisation. The Appellant denied these allegations and maintained that the grounds for dismissal were unfair, unreasonable and unjustified. 6.The Appellant contended that his duties involved direct handling of cash and that, over his seven years of service, he had never breached the Respondent’s cash-handling procedures. He stated that he used to hand over sales to the Supervisor or Assistant Supervisor on duty, who was responsible for receiving sales from pump attendants and depositing the money in the station safe. 7.Regarding the alleged loss, the Appellant stated that on the material day, the Supervisor, Mr Juma Waziri, was away on other assignments, and the Assistant Supervisor, Mr Sila Kogo, was on duty. Further, he handed over his sales to Mr Sila Kogo. However, before banking was completed, Mr Sila Kogo was dismissed and cleared by the Respondent without confirming whether all the sales he had received that day were accounted for. 8.The Appellant further claimed that, despite being unfairly dismissed, the Respondent failed to pay his salary for April 2023, even though he had worked that month. He also stated that the Respondent failed to issue him with notice or pay him one month’s salary in lieu of notice, thereby causing him and his family financial hardship. 9.The Appellant maintained that despite demand being made, the Respondent refused, ignored or neglected to pay and compensate him, thereby necessitating the suit. 10.The Appellant’s witness, Juma Waziri, stated in his witness statement that he was a former employee of the Respondent and was familiar with the facts underlying the suit. He further stated that he had worked for the Respondent until sometime in 2023, when he left to pursue better opportunities. 11.He stated that he served as the station supervisor, in charge of the station, the assistant supervisor and the pump attendants. His duties included escorting bulk fuel, general station management, stock-taking, overseeing banking at the station, record-keeping and related duties. 12.He recalled that on 20th February 2023, while on duty at the Moi Avenue Station, he was instructed by the Station Manager, Mr Huzefa, to proceed to the Ferry Station to stand in for another supervisor, Mr Ojwang, who was escorting fuel to Malindi. He therefore left the Moi Avenue Station, leaving Mr Sila Kogo, the assistant supervisor, in charge. According to him, the Appellant had taken the day off on that date. 13.The witness further stated that he returned to the station on 21st February 2023 and found that Mr. Sila Kogo had taken the day off, while the Appellant was on duty for the day shift. He received the day’s sales from the Appellant and deposited them in the station safe as required. When his shift ended, he left the Appellant at the station, as the Appellant was proceeding with the extended night shift. 14.He further stated that on 22nd February 2023, both he and Mr Sila Kogo were at work. As Mr Sila Kogo was his assistant, he received cash sales from pump attendants, including the Appellant, until around noon, when he was dismissed and cleared by Madam Cynthia, a junior staff member from the Bombolulu Station. According to the witness, the clearance was carried out hastily, without confirming whether all the money Mr Sila Kogo had received from the pump attendants was in the safe. He stated that only the employee card and uniform were collected from Mr Sila Kogo. 15.The witness stated that when he tried to intervene, Ms Wendy Kithinji from Human Resources stopped him and told him to let Madam Cynthia handle the process. He further stated that on 23rd February 2023, during banking in the presence of the Wells Fargo team, it was discovered that the cash sales received by Mr. Sila Kogo were missing, while all the cash sales he himself had received from the pump attendants were intact in the safe. 16.He stated that he informed Mr Huzefa of the missing money, and they later proceeded to Central Police Station, where he recorded a statement reporting the loss of approximately Kshs. 90,000. According to him, the Respondent could not pursue Mr. Sila Kogo because he had already been cleared. Instead, the pump attendants were made to bear the loss, which he considered unfair and unreasonable, as none of them had previously been dishonest. 17.He further recalled that on 24th February 2023, he asked Mr Michael Oketch to enter the M-Pesa records into the station computer the following morning, 25th February 2023, because he was pressed for time. On the morning of 25th February 2023, the Appellant and Michael Oketch were found by the Retail Head inside the station office, and the Retail Head questioned the Appellant’s presence there. 18.The witness further stated that, during his time with the Respondent, the station office had never been a restricted area. Pump attendants often accessed it to obtain the ETR machine, the KCB swiping machine, the cash sales book, and other items stored there for safekeeping. He therefore stated that it was neither unusual nor improper for the Appellant to access the office for sales-related purposes. Respondent’s case 19.The Respondent’s witness, Huzefa Adamali, stated that he was the Station-in-Charge at the Respondent’s Moi Avenue Petrol Service Station in Mombasa and was conversant with the matters giving rise to the suit. 20.He stated that the Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Pump Attendant before his termination. According to him, on 23rd February 2023, he received a call from the Station Supervisor at the Moi Avenue filling station informing him that when the supervisor and the Wells Fargo CIT crew opened the station safe, they discovered inconsistencies between the amounts indicated in the drop sales and the money found in the safe. 21.Huzefa Adamali stated that upon receiving the report, he immediately went to the Moi Avenue filling station to investigate the issue. After examining the drop sales and the money in the safe, he established that Kshs. 17,000 raised by the Appellant on 22nd February 2023 was missing. He reported the matter to the Central Police Station and informed the Respondent’s Human Resource Officer. 22.He further stated that on 28th February 2023 at around 5:50 a.m., while conducting a random spot check, he found the Appellant, together with his colleague, Michael Oketch, accessing the station computer in breach of the Respondent’s rules. He then informed the Respondent’s Human Resource Officer, who commenced disciplinary action against the Appellant on both allegations. 23.The Respondent’s 2nd witness, Wendy Kithinji, stated that she was the Human Resource Officer of the Respondent. 24.She stated that after receiving the investigation report from Huzefa Adamali, she issued the Appellant with a notice to show cause dated 13th March 2023. The Appellant responded to the notice by a letter dated 13th March 2023. 25.According to Wendy Kithinji, the Respondent reviewed the Appellant’s response and thereafter invited him to attend a disciplinary meeting on 20th March 2023 to defend himself. She stated that the Appellant attended the disciplinary meeting, was informed of the reasons for which the Respondent was considering terminating his employment, and was given an opportunity to defend himself. 26.She maintained that the Appellant’s claim of unfair termination was baseless because the Respondent had a valid reason to terminate his employment and followed the procedure provided under the Employment Act, 2007. 27.She further stated that after the disciplinary meeting, the Respondent found that the Appellant’s explanation lacked merit and summarily dismissed him by a letter dated 17th April 2023. According to her, the Appellant was also paid his terminal dues. Judgment by the Lower Court 28.After hearing the parties on their respective cases, considering their evidence and the submissions of their respective counsel, the learned trial magistrate found that the summary dismissal of the appellant was both substantively and procedurally fair. Further, he was not entitled to the reliefs sought. She consequently dismissed his case in its entirety. The Appeal 29.Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant filed this appeal on the following grounds.1.That the Learned Honourable Magistrate erred in law and in fact in holding that the claimant was not unfairly terminated in total disregard of the law, the facts and the evidence on record.2.That the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact in finding that the appellant was not entitled to the relief sought. Appellant’s Submissions 30.The Appellant submitted that the learned magistrate erred in finding the termination procedurally fair. According to the Appellant, although the Respondent issued a notice to show cause dated 13th March 2023 and convened a disciplinary hearing on 20th March 2023, the process was merely formal and did not constitute a genuine hearing under section 41 of the Employment Act. 31.The Appellant argued that the hearing was rushed, superficial and predetermined, and that the Respondent failed to give genuine consideration to his explanation, particularly his complaint that his supervisor, Mr Sila Kogo, had been dismissed before the banking was completed, thereby breaking the chain of accountability for the alleged missing cash. 32.Reliance was placed on Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission [2013] eKLR, Naima Khamis v Oxford University Press EA Ltd [2017] eKLR, Reuben Ikatwa & 17 Others v Commanding Officer British Army Training Unit Kenya & Another [2017] eKLR, and Pius Machafu Isindu v Lavington Security Guards Ltd [2017] eKLR for the principles that termination must satisfy both procedural fairness and substantive justification. 33.The Appellant further submitted that the Respondent failed to prove the reasons for dismissal as required under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. The two allegations on which the dismissal was based, namely that the Appellant failed to follow cash-handling procedures, resulting in a loss of KShs. 17,000, and that he accessed the station computer without authorisation, were not valid. 34.The Appellant contended that the evidence demonstrated he handed over Kshs. 17,000 to his supervisor, Mr Sila Kogo, in accordance with standard procedure, and that the drop sheet was duly signed. It was further asserted that the supervisor was purportedly dismissed before the funds were deposited in the bank; however, the Respondent failed to call him as a witness or to clarify his involvement in the alleged loss. Consequently, no substantive material was presented before the trial court establishing a direct link between him and the missing funds. 35.The Appellant further submitted that the allegation of unauthorised access to the computer was not proved. He stated that the computer was accessed by Mr Michael Oketch, who had allegedly been authorised by CW2 to input M-Pesa records, and that the Appellant only entered the office to confirm who had opened it. 36.He challenged the Respondent’s photographic evidence on the ground that it was not accompanied by a certificate of electronic evidence under section 106B of the Evidence Act. On this basis, the Appellant submitted that the Respondent’s evidence was speculative, inadmissible and insufficient to support a finding of gross misconduct. 37.The Appellant contended that the learned Magistrate erroneously shifted the burden of proof onto him, rather than requiring the Respondent to substantiate the termination. He further submitted that, pursuant to sections 43, 45, and 47(5) of the Employment Act, the employer has the obligation to demonstrate both the reason for termination and the fairness of the procedure. 38.He maintained that the Respondent’s witnesses admitted that both the supervisor and the Appellant bore responsibility for the cash-handling process, yet the Respondent placed blame solely on the Appellant without conducting a fair inquiry into the supervisor’s role. 39.Reliance was placed on George Musamali v G4S Security Services Kenya Ltd [2016] eKLR and Naima Khamis v Oxford University Press EA Ltd [2017] eKLR for the proposition that an employer must present credible evidence linking the employee to the alleged misconduct. 40.With regard to the remedies, the Appellant submitted that, given the unfair nature of the termination, he is entitled to reliefs pursuant to section 49 of the Employment Act. He sought a declaration that he was unfairly and unlawfully dismissed, along with the other reliefs outlined in the introductory part of this judgment. Respondent’s submissions 41.The Respondent submitted that the appeal was unmerited because the lower court, on sound analysis of the material before it, correctly found that the Appellant’s termination was both substantively and procedurally fair. Citing Ken Freight (EA) Limited v Benson K Nguti [2016] eKLR, it argued that the dismissal met the fairness threshold, as the presence of substantive justification and adherence to procedural fairness was discernible, the two ingredients that constitute fairness per that decision. 42.According to the Respondent, the dispute was not regarding the existence of cash-handling procedures, but rather whether the Appellant violated the provisions outlined in Petro Oil Kenya Ltd: Policies, Guidelines & Procedures. 43.It was submitted that the manual required pump attendants not to hold more than KShs. 6,000. Once that limit was reached, the attendant was required to record the amount in a pre-numbered duplicate book, sign it, take the money and the book to the supervisor, have the supervisor countersign, and then jointly deposit the cash in the drop safe. 44.The Respondent contended that, despite the Appellant's assertion of adherence to the prescribed procedure, he and his supervisor, Silah Kogo, conspired, which led to the disappearance of Kshs. 17,000 from the deposits made on 22nd February 2023. 45.The Respondent further contended that the Appellant’s assertion that the supervisor had been dismissed prior to the banking procedure does not aid in his argument. According to the Respondent, if the Appellant and the supervisor had genuinely made the deposit as required, the funds would have been located in the safe, which could only be accessed with two keys—one held by the supervisor and the other by the Wells Fargo team. The Respondent indicated that the missing funds were discovered only during the banking process on 23rd February 2023, after Juma Waziri and the Wells Fargo team opened the safe. 46.The Respondent also argued that the Appellant was correctly linked to the second allegation of being present in the Moi Avenue station office, a restricted area. It claimed that the Appellant admitted to being in the office, even though his workstation was at the pump. 47.Although he claimed the office was not restricted and that he used to collect the ETR machine from there, the Respondent’s witness testified that stationery was kept in an adjacent room, thereby confirming that the office was restricted to authorised persons only. 48.On procedural fairness, the Respondent submitted that it complied with section 41 of the Employment Act. It relied on Anthony Mkala Chitavi v Malindi Water & Sewerage Company Ltd [2013] eKLR, Dungani v West Kenya Sugar Company Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal 12 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 172 (KLR) (8 February 2024) (Judgment), on the requirements of procedural fairness and internal investigations. 49.The Respondent stated that after the missing cash was discovered, investigations were initiated by the station in charge, Huzefa Adamali, and a report was prepared showing that money was missing from drops made by several pump attendants, including the Appellant. 50.The Respondent submitted that after investigations, its Human Resource department issued the Appellant with a notice to show cause dated 13th March 2023, setting out the grounds upon which termination was being considered. 51.The Appellant responded, and was later invited to a disciplinary meeting scheduled for 20th March 2023 through a letter dated 16th March 2023. The Respondent stated that the Appellant was informed of his right to attend with a fellow employee or shop floor union representative, and that he was given an opportunity to defend himself before the decision to summarily dismiss him was made through the letter dated 17th April 2023. 52.On remedies, the Respondent submitted that, having proved both substantive and procedural fairness, it was not liable to pay compensation for unfair termination or salary in lieu of notice. On leave, it submitted that the Appellant had taken leave during employment and that the 14 days due before dismissal were included in the terminal dues paid to him. 53.Regarding service pay, the Respondent submitted that it had duly remitted NSSF contributions for the Appellant, as shown in his payslips, and therefore service pay was not payable. Regarding the April 2023 salary, it was further submitted that the Appellant was paid, as evidenced by the payslip and cheque. Regarding the certificate of service, the Respondent submitted that it had issued the certificate and that the Appellant acknowledged receipt by signing a copy. 54.In conclusion, the Respondent urged the court to find that the appeal lacked merit and to dismiss it with costs. Analysis and determination 55.As this is a first appeal, this Court is required to reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence on record and arrive at its own independent conclusion, bearing in mind that it did not have the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses testify. See Selle vs Associated Motor Boat Co. [1968] EA 123. 56.I have carefully considered the record of appeal, the proceedings before the lower court, the impugned judgment, the grounds of appeal, and the submissions by counsel. The appeal turns on two broad issues: first, whether the learned trial Magistrate erred in finding that the Appellant’s summary dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair; and second, whether the Appellant was entitled to the reliefs sought in the Memorandum of Claim. 57.It is not in dispute that the Appellant herein was employed by the Respondent as a Pump Attendant at all material times. It is also not in dispute that he was summarily dismissed from his employment at the Respondent’s initiative. The Appellant contended and maintains that the dismissal was without a valid and fair reason and did not accord with the edicts of procedural fairness. 58.The Appellant held a different perspective, asserting that the summary dismissal was both substantively and procedurally justified. It was based on valid and fair reasons and in accordance with the provisions of Section 41 of the Employment Act, which mandates a specific procedure for an employer contemplating the dismissal of an employee. 59.Invited to interrogate the fairness or otherwise of a termination of an employee’s employment or a summary dismissal of an employee, a court is enjoined to consider two statutory aspects, procedural fairness and substantive fairness. Of course, I have not lost sight of the fact that, depending on the circumstances of a case, only one of these aspects may be at issue. The lower Court’s Judgment reflects an understanding of this principle of employment law. 60.Indeed, Section 45 [2] of the Act contemplates these aspects and provides for when a termination of an employee’s employment can be deemed unfair. It provides: -“(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 employee’s conduct, capacity, or compatibility; orii.Based on the operational requirements of the employer, andc.That the employment was terminated in accordance with fair procedure.” 61.Elaborating on the two aspects and their place in a dispute regarding termination of employment, the Court in Walter Ogal Anuro V Teachers Service Commission [2013] KEELRC 386 (KLR), the court held that, “For a termination to pass the fairness test, it must be shown that there was not only substantive justification for the termination but also procedural fairness. Substantive justification has to do with the establishment of a valid reason for the termination, while procedural fairness addresses the procedure adopted by the employer to effect the termination.” 62.It bears repeating that the law places a duty upon the employer to prove that they adhered to the prescripts of procedural fairness and that the decision to terminate was substantively justified. The standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities. The Court of Appeal in Kenya Revenue Authority v Gitahi & 2 others [2019] KECA 300 (KLR), the held that;“The standard of proof is on a balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt, and all the employer is required to prove are the reasons that it “genuinely believed to exist,” causing it to terminate the employee’s services. That is a partly subjective test.” 63.Section 47[5] of the Employment Act places a legal burden on the employee, which must be discharged before the evidential burden hereinabove mentioned shifts to the employer. The employee must prove that an unfair termination occurred. See. Galgalo Jarso Jillo v Agricultural Finance Corporation [2021] KEELRC 323 (KLR). I have carefully considered the judgment of the lower Court; the tone does not suggest that, in the manner it analysed the evidence and reached its conclusions, the burden throughout lay on the Appellant. As such, I am not persuaded by the Appellant’s submissions that the trial Court shifted the burden that was supposed to be discharged by the Respondent onto him. 64.The Appellant contended that the decision to have him summarily dismissed did not accord the edicts of procedural fairness. Section 41 of the Employment Act sets out a mandatory procedure that any employer contemplating the dismissal of an employee must follow. The procedure has three ingredients: the notification, the hearing, and consideration. I agree with the learned trial Magistrate that none of these ingredients was absent in the process that led to the dismissal of employment. 65.The record shows that the Appellant was issued with a notice to show cause dated 13th March 2023, to which he responded on the same date. He was subsequently invited to a disciplinary hearing scheduled for 20th March 2023 through a letter dated 16th March 2023. The evidence also shows that he attended the disciplinary meeting and was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations levelled against him. 66.The Appellant’s complaint does not pertain to the absence of a disciplinary process; rather, it pertains to the assertion that the process was a mere formality and that his explanation was not genuinely considered. Although he contended that the process was predetermined, the evidence before the Court does not sufficiently substantiate that the disciplinary hearing was a sham or that the Respondent had already reached a decision prior to hearing his explanation. Consequently, I find no justification for intervening with the learned magistrate’s conclusion that the dismissal was procedurally fair. 67.Inarguably, the Appellant was summarily dismissed. Section 44 of the Employment Act provides for summary dismissal. It provides for acts of commission or omission by the employee that may result in summary dismissal. Duty lay upon the Respondent to prove that the infraction complained of against the Appellant fell under the category of those in the catalogue set out under Section 44[4] or that the gravity of the act complained of was like that of those listed. It is only by so doing that it could be said that the burden under Section 45[2] proving that the reason was fair and valid has been discharged. 68.Regarding the grounds for termination, the evidence presented by CW2, Juma Waziri, supported the Appellant’s position to the extent that Mr Sila Kogo was the individual receiving cash from pump attendants on the relevant day, and that his dismissal [ Mr Kago’s] was conducted prior to verifying whether all cash received by him was secured in the safe. The Respondent’s witnesses also confirmed that Mr Sila Kogo was dismissed on 22nd February 2023, prior to the banking process, and that, as a supervisor, he could, at one point, be involved in the cash-handling process at the station. 69.However, in my view, that evidence does not displace the Respondent’s case or render the termination unfair. The Appellant admitted that he was conversant with the Respondent’s cash-handling procedure. He also admitted that the missing drop in sales on 22nd February 2023 was his. He further admitted that, where a pump attendant had cash in excess of Kshs. 6,000, the Respondent’s procedure required the attendant to prepare a drop note, sign it, have the supervisor countersign it, and thereafter ensure that the money was dropped. It is clear to me that the Appellant did not adhere to the requirement. 70.Further, I note that responsibility for ensuring the drop was properly completed was a joint one, shared by the Pump Attendant and the Supervisor. The Appellant cannot be heard to complain that the action taken against him was not the same as that taken against the Supervisor. The evidence and the circumstances of the matter directly linked him to the loss, contrary to his assertion that it did not. 71.n Galgalo Jarso Jillo v Agricultural Finance Corporation [2021] KEELRC 323 (KLR), the court held that, “Under section 44 of the Act, one of the grounds that would justify the finding of gross misconduct against an employee is the commission or suspicion of commission by an employee of a crime against the property or person of the employer. In relation to this ground and as has been rightly pointed out by counsel for the Respondent, it does not require the employer to have watertight evidence of the alleged criminal transgression for the ground to arise. All that is required is for the employer to have justifiable and compelling grounds to suspect that the affected employee has engaged in acts that are criminal in nature and which affect the property or person of the employer.” 72.Any reasonable employer in the circumstances would dismiss the Appellant on the ground of breaching their procedure, or on a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in the loss of the money in one way or another. 73.The second allegation concerned the Appellant’s presence in the station office and alleged access to the station computer. The Appellant admitted being found in the office with Michael Oketch, but denied using the computer. He further admitted that his workstation was at the pump, not in the office. I find that the Respondent had valid and fair reasons for summarily dismissing the Appellant. 74.I therefore find no basis to interfere with the learned magistrate’s finding that the Appellant’s summary dismissal was both substantively and procedurally fair. 75.Having found the termination to be fair, the Appellant was not entitled to compensation for unfair termination under section 49 of the Employment Act. The prayer for a declaration that he was unfairly dismissed, therefore, fails. The claim for salary in lieu of notice properly failed, as the dismissal was a lawful summary dismissal under section 44 of the Employment Act. 76.Regarding service pay, the Respondent produced evidence that NSSF contributions were remitted on the Appellant’s behalf. Under section 35(6) of the Employment Act, an employee who is a member of NSSF is not entitled to service pay under section 35(5). The learned magistrate, therefore, properly dismissed the claim for service pay. 77.Regarding the claim for the April 2023 salary, the lower court found that the payslip produced by the Respondent showed that the Appellant had been paid. The Respondent also maintained that payment had been made and supported that position by reference to the payslip and cheque. I find no basis to interfere with that finding. 78.On leave pay, the Respondent’s position was that the Appellant had taken leave during the course of employment and that the leave days due before dismissal were included in his terminal dues. I hold that the evidence by the Respondent on this was not sufficiently challenged and displaced. 79.In the final analysis, I find that the learned Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and correctly found that the Appellant’s summary dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair. The reliefs sought were correctly declined. 80.Consequently, I find the Appeal lacking in merit. It is hereby dismissed. READ, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.OCHARO KEBIRAJUDGE.