Karanja v Kentalya PLC (Cause E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1459 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Judgment)

Karanja v Kentalya PLC (Cause E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1459 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1459 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru Cause E013 of 2025 J Rika, J May 29, 2026 Between Margaret Wanjiru Karanja Claimant and Kentalya Plc Respondent Judgment 1.The Claim herein bears the same factual background, to two other Claims, before this Court: Cause Number E011 of 2025, Diana Wangari Kiarie v. Kentalya PLC; and Cause Number E012 of 2025, Joseph Kiarie Njung’e v. Kentalya PLC. 2.The Claimants were heard separately, but the evidence for the Respondent was recorded in Cause Number E011 of 2025. Copies of the Respondent’s oral evidence were extracted and placed in the other 2 Claims. The main Judgment was made under Cause Number E012 of 2025, Joseph Kiarie Njung’e v. Kentalya PLC. 3.The Court shall not therefore write a detailed Judgment in this Claim, but adopt its primary findings in the main Judgment, in so far as those findings are relevant and applicable to Margaret Wanjiku Karanja. 4.The Statement of Claim is dated 17th February 2025. The Claimant avers that she was employed by the Respondent on 1st July 2009 as an Accounts Clerk. She rose to the position of Senior Accounts Clerk, and was confirmed on 1st November 2012. 5.She was dismissed alongside the other Claimants, through a notice placed on the notice board by the Respondent, on 6th November 2024. Her last salary was Kshs. 123,977. 6.She was issued a letter to show cause after dismissal, dated 20th November 2024, alleging that she was involved in fraudulent activities against the Respondent. 7.She was required to attend hearing on 22nd November 2024, later postponed to 26th November 2024. She attended hearing, although she was convinced that the Respondent had already decided to terminate her contract. She was not given adequate notice and was denied opportunity to record the proceedings. 8.She was issued a second letter of summary dismissal dated 2nd December 2024. 9.The disciplinary hearing was a sham, termination of her employment having been communicated to her and her colleagues through the notice board, on 6th November 2024. 10.She states that she worked for over 15 years. She was not paid salary for 32 days leading to her dismissal. She was owed annual leave days. 11.Her prayers are: -a.Declaration that termination was unfair and unlawful.b.1-month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 123,977.c.Equivalent of 12 months’ salary in compensation for unfair termination at Kshs. 1,487,724.d.Annual Leave days at Kshs. 86,783 and Kshs. 36,159 respectively.e.Severance pay at Kshs. 1,487,724.f.Salary for 32 days worked and not paid, at Kshs. 132,242.Total...Kshs. 3,354,610.g.Certificate of Service.h.Interest at court rates. 12.The Respondent filed its Statement of Response dated 14th April 2025, adopting a similar stance to the other 2 Claims. 13.The Claimant engaged in fraudulent procurement practices, in collusion with her colleagues. She discharged her role improperly. The Respondent lost Kshs. 1,089,914 as a result of her fraudulent activities. She did not declare conflict of interest. She breached fiduciary obligations. The Respondent lost trust and confidence with her. Termination was in strict compliance with the law. It was fair and lawful. The Respondent urges the Court to dismiss the Claim with costs. 14.The Claimant adopted her Witness Statement and Documents [1-12], in her evidence-in-chief. 15.She too reported for duty on 6th November 2024. She heard Employees make noise. She was told by the Employees that she had been dismissed. Her name was listed on a notice placed on the notice board. It communicated that she was no longer an Employee of the Respondent. 16.She gathered her belongings and left the workplace. She was issued a letter to show cause, 3 weeks after dismissal. She was later invited for a hearing which she attended. She was notified about termination a second time, after the hearing. 17.Cross-examined, she stated that she was not trained as an Accountant, but had served as an Accounts Clerk. She received the letter to show cause. She did not understand its contents. She denied the allegations. She never acted fraudulently. 18.She left for home after she was dismissed on 6th November 2025. She did not come to learn that there was an industrial strife at the workplace on 6th November 2026. 19.She found strangers at the meeting she was called to, on 26th November 2024. She saw the audit report exhibited by the Respondent before the Court. She was the Director of Petu General Supplies. It was indicated to have supplied general items to the Respondent. She consulted the Managing Director, Grant, about her company supplies to the Respondent. 20.Ludwig became the Managing Director from 1st October 2024. Margaret did not know if Absalom Gitau left employment. She was not related to Absalom Gitau. She did not occasion the Respondent loss. Margaret was initially employed by the Respondent’s predecessor, Goldsmith Limited in 1994, as a Clerical Office. 21.Redirected, she told the Court that she was never involved with the audit exercise. 22.Ludwig told the Court that he found weak internal controls at the Respondent, when he assumed office, in August 2024. He commissioned a preliminary audit of the systems, but did not have the preliminary audit report in Court. The main audit exercise was commissioned after Ludwig received the preliminary report. 23.The audit report is dated 16th January 2025. It was not available to the Respondent for use, before this date. The Claimants had already been dismissed. 24.There was no policy on conflict of interest. There was none on procurement. Ludwig did not have any document establishing that there was nepotism at the workplace. 25.He did not constitute a disciplinary committee. Riots started and Ludwig and his colleagues took to their heels. The letter to show cause dated 20th November 2024, issued 2 weeks after dismissal on 6th November 2024. The letter of dismissal dated 2nd December 2024 was signed by a Project Manager. 26.Auditor Ngige told the Court that it was his audit exercise, which unearthed fraud, conflict of interest and irregularities at the Respondent. 27.He conceded however that his report disclosed he did not verify the validity of documents relied upon. Interview notes were not attached to the report. Policies and procedures were not supplied. 28.He completed his report on 16th January 2025. It would not be applicable before this date. 29.He did not interview the Claimant. He was told she was no longer in employment. 30.Head of Human Resource, Noelle Vwamu, confirmed that the Claimant Margaret, was named on a list placed on the Respondent’s notice board on 6th November 2024, as one of the Employee who had been dismissed. The notice was signed by the Managing Director. 31.She was issued a letter to show cause, after dismissal, dated 20th November 2024. 32.The issues are whether termination was procedurally fair under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act; whether it was based on valid reason or reasons under Section 43 and 45 of the Employment Act; and whether the remedies pleaded are merited. The Court Finds: 33.The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as an Accounts Clerk, on 1st July 2009. 34.She was dismissed on 6th November 2024. She worked for 15 years. She last held the position of Senior Accounts Clerk, earning a monthly salary of Kshs. 123,977. 35.The notice dated 6th November 2024 was signed by Ludwig. It informed all Respondent’s staff, that Absalom Gitau, Martin Kirunyu, Margaret Wanjiku [Claimant herein], Joseph Njunge [Co-Claimant] and Diana Wangari [Co-Claimant] were no longer Employees of the Respondent. 36.The effective date of termination [EDT] was 6th November 2024, when the Claimant received the communication from Ludwig. 37.Ludwig did not deny authorship of the communication. 38.The Claimant told the Court that she gathered her belongings and left for home. 39.The actions by the Respondent that followed dismissal on 6th November 2024, were meaningless motions. 40.She was no longer an Employee of the Respondent after 6th November 2024, after the Managing Director dismissed her. It was pointless to issue her a letter to show cause dated 20th November 2024; to invite her for disciplinary hearing; to purport to hear her; and to issue a second communication on termination. 41.The Respondent and its fresher Managing Director shot themselves in the foot, when they issued the notice of termination dated 6th November 2024. Ludwig perhaps, ought to have held his horses, given himself a period of familiarization with the Laws of Kenya, and allowed the temperatures occasioned by the Industrial strife of 6th November 2024 to come down, before taking decisions with far reaching consequences to the Respondent. 42.There were no charges communicated to the Claimant by the Respondent, at the time Managing Director announced that she was no longer an Employee. She had not been heard, and any allegations established, as on 6th November 2024. 43.The audit report was finalized on 16th January 2025. The Auditor Ngige, and other Witnesses for the Respondent, agreed that the report could not apply, before this date. It could not inform any decision, before 16th January 2025. Ludwig confirmed he did not have the benefit of this report, and was not able to exhibit any other report even of a preliminary nature, establishing the allegations against the Claimant. 44.Justification under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act is real-time. It cannot be retrospective, applied to correct past decisions. Valid reason or reasons are established at the time of making the decision to terminate. 45.For these reasons and as elaborated in the lead Judgment in Cause Number E012 of 2025, Joseph Kiarie Njunge v. Kentalya PLC, the Court is persuaded that termination was unfair and unlawful. It did not meet the minimum standards of procedural and substantive justice, under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. 46.It is declared that termination was unfair and unlawful. 47.The Claimant is granted 1-month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 123,977. 48.She worked for 15 years. Considering that she worked earlier before 2009 for the Respondent’s predecessor, she was at the same workplace for longer than 15 years. She was paid nothing on termination, after many years of toil. She was not shown to have caused, or contributed to the circumstances leading to termination. She told the Court that she was at the time of giving evidence, on 13th November 2025, still unemployed. She was permanent and pensionable, with the expectation that she would serve the Respondent until she was retired. She merits and is granted compensation equivalent of 12 months’ salary at Kshs. 1,487,724. 49.Her prayers for annual leave, which is made under 2 separate heads, was not established through evidence. The Court has closely looked at her oral and documentary evidence, and come to the conclusion that this prayer is a mere pleading, which was not fleshed out through evidence. It is declined. 50.Like her Co-Claimants, the Claimant pleads severance pay. Termination of her contract was not made under Section 40 of the Employment Act, which is on redundancy, and which provides for severance pay. The prayer is declined. 51.She left employment on 6th November 2024, on the advice of the Managing Director Ludgwig. She merits and is awarded salary for 6 days worked in November 2024, at Kshs. 24, 795. 52.Certificate of Service to issue. 53.Interest granted at court rate, from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full. 54.No order on the costs.It is ordered : - a.It is declared that termination was unfair and unlawful.b.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant: notice at Kshs. 123,977; compensation for unfair and unlawful termination at Kshs. 1,487,724; and salary for 6 days worked in November 2024, at Kshs. 24,795- total Kshs. 1,636,496.c.Certificate of Service to issue.d.Interest granted at court rate, from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full.e.No order on the costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, UNDER RULE 68[5] OF THE E&LRC [PROCEDURE] RULES, 2024, THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 2026.JAMES RIKAJUDGE