https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1475

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR** **RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU** **CAUSE NUMBER E011 OF 2025** **BETWEEN** DIANA WANGARI KIARIE........................................................…CLAIMANT **VERSUS** KENTALYA PLC .......................................................................…RESPONDENT *Rika J* *Court Assistant: Emmanuel Kiprono* *\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_* *Frank Karanja & Company Advocates for the Claimant* *Oraro & Company Advocates for the Respondent* *\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_* **JUDGMENT** 1. The Claim herein bears the same background with **Nakuru Cause Number E012 of 2025, Joseph Kiarie Njunge v Kentalya PLC;** and **Nakuru Cause Number E013 of 2025, Margaret Wanjiru Karanja v. Kentalya PLC.** 2. All the 3 Claimants were employed by the Respondent, and were dismissed under similar circumstances. 3. The evidence for the Respondent, common to all the Claimants, was recorded in **Cause Number E012 of 2025.** 4. A comprehensive Judgment has been prepared and certain findings applicable to all the 3 Claims reached, under **Cause Number E012 of 2025**. 5. The Court shall not therefore write a detailed Judgment in this Claim, but shall adopt the findings in **Cause Number E012**, in so far as they are relevant and applicable to the current Cause. 6. In brief, Diana filed her Statement of Claim dated 17th February 2025. She was employed by the Respondent as an Office Assistant in 2017. 7. She rose to the position of Human Resource and Administration Manager, earning a gross monthly salary of Kshs. 178,750, by the time she left employment, on 6th November 2024. 8. Like the other Claimants, she avers she was shocked to find her name listed on a notice board at the workplace, announcing on 6th November 2026, that she had been dismissed. 9. She was issued a letter of summary dismissal dated 22nd November 2024. 10. She was not issued a letter to show cause and was not heard. Termination was not based on valid reasons. 11. Her prayers are: - 12. Declaration that termination was unfair and unlawful. 13. 1-month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 178,750. 14. Equivalent of 12 months’ salary in compensation for unfair termination, at Kshs. 2,145,000. 15. Annual leave at Kshs. 125,125. 16. Severance pay for 8 years of service at Kshs. 715,000. 17. Salary for 22 days worked in November 2024 at Kshs. 131,083. 18. Certificate of Service. 19. Interest. 20. The Statement of Response is dated 14th April 2025. The Respondent does not deny that the Claimant was its Employee. Like her colleagues, she was involved in fraudulent procurement. She performed her duty improperly leading to loss of Kshs. 1,089,914 to the Respondent. She was paid house allowance of Kshs. 204,000 fraudulently. She facilitated supply of goods to the Respondent, by companies associated with the Employees. She orchestrated riots by Employees at the workplace. Termination was procedurally fair, and for valid reasons. 21. The Claimant gave evidence and closed her case, on 13th November 2025. Ludwig Allnoch, Anthony Ngige, Noelle Vwamu, and Maximillian Meinzingen, gave evidence for the Respondent. Hearing closed on 25th February 2026. The Claim was last mentioned on 14th April 2026, when the Parties confirmed filing and exchange of their Submissions. 22. Diana adopted her Witness Statement and Documents [1-11], in her evidence-in-chief. She told the Court that she is still searching for a job, after leaving the Respondent. She was housed outside the workplace, and did not claim house allowance. She confirmed that there was a riot at the workplace, and that she was informed by colleagues that her name was among names of Employees who had been dismissed, through a notice, placed on the notice board. 23. Cross-examined, she denied that she was involved in fraudulent procurement. She did not handle cash. She maintained petty cash voucher properly. There was no double payments made to suppliers. She did not award herself house allowance irregularly. It was given according to job grade. 24. She received letter to show cause. It stated that she received house allowance irregularly. It was alleged that the company lost money fraudulently. 25. She was not given a fair hearing. Audit report alleged that she mismanaged petty cash. Absalom Gitau was her father, and Business Manager at the Respondent. She was not aware that he was Director at one of the suppliers who supplied the Respondent. The Respondent, not Diana, paid money to the supplier. She was not aware of complaints raised by Ludwig against Gitau, including nepotism. Gitau was also dismissed. 26. The Claimant was issued notice to show cause. She was asked to attend a disciplinary hearing. She was not granted time to appear. 27. Redirected, she told the Court that she did book-keeping. She did not handle cash. She was not involved in audit. She was not prosecuted for fraud. House allowance was payable to her under the contract. 28. Ludwig Allnoch, Respondent’s Managing Director told the Court he did not exhibit the preliminary audit report, in Court. The final report was received by him on 16th January 2025. Diana had already been dismissed. He confirmed that the Auditor found there were no formal policies, to guide Employees. He did not form a disciplinary committee. There were riots, compelling him to flee the workplace. A letter of summary dismissal dated 6th November 2024, was issued to Diana. It states that she attended hearing the same date. The author of the letter was not indicated. It was not signed. 29. She was issued a letter to show cause on 20th November 2024, after summary dismissal on 6th November 2024. She was issued a second letter of summary dismissal, dated 22nd November 2024. The second letter was signed by a person who was not employed by the Respondent. 30. The Auditor Ngige confirmed that his report was finalized on 16th January 2025, and his report therefore could not have been used any date before this. He was not invited to any disciplinary hearing, and did not interview Diana. 31. Head of Human Resource, Noelle Vwamu, confirmed that Diana was not in employment, by the time Noelle joined the Respondent, on 25th November 2024. She was aware of a notice on the board issued by the Respondent on 6th November 2024, listing Diana among Employee who had been dismissed. 32. The issues are whether the Claimant’s contract was terminated through a fair procedure, in accordance with Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act; whether termination was on valid ground, in accordance with Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act; and whether the remedies sought are merited. **The Court Finds**: - 1. The Court concluded in the lead Judgment in **Cause Number E012 of 2025,** that termination was unfair both on account of procedure and justification. 1. Evidence from both Parties is that the Claimant was dismissed on 6th November 2024, through a list on the notice board. 2. There was no letter to show cause, no charges, and no disciplinary hearing, before 6th November 2024. The audit report which the Respondent relied upon in justifying termination in its pleadings and evidence before the Court, was generated on 16th January 2025, after the Claimant was dismissed. 3. The Respondent issued letters to show cause and a second letter of summary dismissal, after dismissal on 6th November 2024. Some of these letters were unsigned, with the authors unknown, a glaring procedural misstep. 4. Justification under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, is at the time of termination, not after termination. The Respondent terminated the Claimant’s contract before it had concluded its investigations through the audit exercise. The report itself was unsigned, and is not a document that is to be given weight, at any dispute resolution platform. Justification cannot be retrospective. 5. Notably, the Respondent does not seek to recover any amounts by way of counterclaim from any of the Claimants. Certain amounts were specified in the Respondent’s pleadings, as the loss sustained by the Respondent, through the fraudulent activities of the Claimant. 6. Termination was clearly contrary to the standards of procedural and substantive justice, prescribed under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. 7. **it is declared that termination was unfair and unlawful.** 8. The Claimant’s contract dated 28th December 2022 gave a notice period of 30 days, during the probationary period. It did not provide for notice period after probation. 9. Her letter of confirmation dated 2nd January 2024, signed by Managing Director Grant D.K. Munn, described the Claimant as a Semi-Senior Employee. It went on to provide for a notice of termination period of 90 days, or 90 days’ salary for such staff, in lieu of notice. The Claimant however, prays for 30 days’ notice. **She is granted 30 days’ notice pay at Kshs. 178,750.** 10. She worked for 7 years, from 2017 to 2024. She was not shown to have caused or contributed to the circumstances leading to termination of her contract, on 6th November 2024. She was not paid any terminal benefits at the end of her 7 years. She told the Court that she is still searching for a job, 7 years on. Her contract discloses that she was permanent and pensionable. She expected to work until retirement. **She is granted equivalent of 7 months’ salary in compensation for unfair termination, at Kshs. 1,251,250.** 11. Her position was not declared redundant. There is no merit to her prayer for severance pay, which applies on termination through redundancy, under Section 40 of the Employment Act. 12. The Claimant pleads at paragraph 13 of her Statement of Claim, that she did not take annual leave, for the last year. She claims Kshs. 125, 125 in annual leave. Her letter of confirmation dated 2nd January 2024, granted her 26 working days of annual leave. She said nothing about annual leave in her Witness Statement and evidence before the Court. The prayer is based on bare pleading. The Court declines this prayer. 13. The effective date of termination was 6th November 2024, not any other date communicated through unsigned letters whose author was unknown. **She merits and is awarded, salary for 6 days at Kshs. 35,750.** 14. **Certificate of Service to issue.** 15. **Interest allowed at court rate, from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full.** 16. No order on the costs**.** **IT IS ORDERED: -** 1. **It is declared that termination was unfair and unlawful.** 2. **The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant, notice of 30 days at Kshs. 178,750; compensation for unfair termination at Kshs. 1,251,250; and 6 days’ salary at Kshs. 35,750 – total Kshs. 1,465,750.** 3. **Certificate of Service to issue.** 4. **Interest allowed at court rate, from the date of Judgment till payment is made in full.** 5. **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 Rika Judge