https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2010

Mwaniki v Bluesky Wines Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E039 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2010 (KLR) (15 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 2010 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Machakos Employment and Labour Relations Cause E039 of 2024 HS Wasilwa, J July 15, 2026 Between Zipporah Muthoni Mwaniki Claimant and Bluesky Wines Limited Respondent Judgment 1.The Claimant instituted this claim vide a Memorandum of Claim dated 31st October 2024 and seeks judgment against the Respondent for the following: -a.A declaration that the Claimant’s Employment was unlawfully, unfairly, wrongfully and maliciously terminated and was done without following fair procedure.b.A Declaration that the Statutory requirements preceding a termination were not adhered to.c.A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to a Certificate of Service pursuant to Section 51 of the Employment Act.d.One month's wages in lieu of Notice in the sum of Ksh. 100,000/-e.11 days worked in March and not paid Ksh. 36,667/-f.Payment of 34 days leave due to the Claimant in the sum of Ksh. 113,333/-.g.Payment of the equivalent of twelve months gross wages for unfair and unlawful termination amounting to Ksh. 1,200,000/-.h.Payment of all other wages and dues owing to the Claimant.i.Costs of this Suit.j.Interest on (d), (e), (f) and (g) above at Court rates from the date of termination until payment in fullk.Any other prayers that the Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case. Claimant’s Case 2.The Claimant avers that she was employed by the Respondent as an Accountant on or about the 22nd November 2021. 3.It is the Claimant’s case that though she was never issued with a formal letter of employment, she was at all material times an employee of the Respondent under a Contract of Service, working from the Respondent's offices at Bellway Business Park, Syokimau, within the jurisdiction of this Court, and that her employment was thus within the meaning and purport of Section 2 of the Employment Act. 4.She avers that her roles included preparing periodic sales reports, ageing analysis and reconciliations, managing taxes including VAT, Withholding VAT and Withholding Tax, preparing and maintaining payroll statutory deductions and payroll administration, maintaining inventory control records, overseeing accounts payable and receivable, managing debtor and supplier correspondence, implementing internal control functions, and reconciling daily sales collections against bankings. 5.The Claimant stated that she was paid an average monthly salary of Kshs. 100,000, as evidenced by certified bank statements and KRA PAYE returns. 6.She further avers that in the course of her duties she communicated in writing with the Respondent's business partners, suppliers, customers and employees, and relied on a Certificate of Electronic Evidence and correspondence marked "B1" and "B" to affirm her employment and capacity as Accountant. 7.The Claimant contends that she diligently and industriously performed her duties, was never involved in any disciplinary issue, and was never issued any warning letter for misconduct. 8.She avers that on or about 11th March 2024, a Director of the Respondent, one Mercy Gwashe, called her to her office and informed her that she should leave immediately, and that the Respondent would get back to her after consulting the other Directors. 9.The Claimant avers that the reason given for the abrupt demand to exit the premises was an accusation of trading with another company and paying a supplier twice, but that no evidence was provided despite her request. 10.It is the Claimant’s case that the demand to vacate was verbal and lasted less than five minutes, nonetheless she complied without knowledge of the actual accusations against her. 11.The Claimant avers that the Respondent has failed to communicate with her since, and that as at the date of filing suit there has been no formal communication on her status. She therefore avers that she was, for all intents and purposes, verbally terminated on 11th March 2024, without being accorded an opportunity to respond to any allegations or a hearing in respect of any alleged misconduct. 12.The Claimant asserts that her termination was unlawful, contra statute, and offended the spirit and letter of the Employment Act 2007, in particular Section 45 thereof, and was thus illegal and against the principles of natural justice. 13.On the particulars of illegality, the Claimant avers that: the employment relationship, though contractual, ought to have operated within the ambit of the Employment Act 2007; the Respondent did not follow due process nor give valid reasons for termination; despite her protests, the Respondent has neither rescinded the termination nor followed fair procedure; she was not accorded a fair hearing and was never summoned to answer any allegation of misconduct. 14.She further avers that she was never given an opportunity to appeal the decision, contrary to the principle of natural justice; the Respondent did not act in accordance with justice and equity; and the Respondent failed to deliver to the Labour Officer in the district a statement of the circumstances and reasons for dismissal, including the period of notice and wages in lieu thereof due to her. 15.She avers that a demand letter dated 10th September 2024 was issued to the Respondent and has not been responded to. 16.The Claimant states that there is no other suit pending between the parties on the same subject matter, and that the cause of action arose in Machakos County, within the jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent’s Case 17.In opposition to the claim, the Respondent filed a Statement of Response dated 4th April 2025. 18.The Respondent denied the Claimant's allegations in their entirety and contends that the claim as filed is false, intentionally misleading, and misrepresents the facts. 19.It is the Respondent’s case that the Claimant's dismissal was warranted, justified, and procedurally fair, having been carried out in accordance with the applicable provisions of the law and her terms of employment. 20.The Respondent contends that the claim is brought in bad faith, is misadvised, and that the Claimant is not entitled to any of the orders sought. 21.The Respondent avers that the Claimant is non-suited as the Memorandum of Claim as drawn discloses no reasonable cause of action, and it shall pray that the suit be struck out in limine with costs. 22.The Respondent contends that the suit is an action brought in despair, contrary to statute, policy, the Constitution of Kenya and the Fair Administrative Action Act, and an affront to the just, smooth and proper administration of justice, and that it amounts to a fraud upon the Court and a gross abuse of its process on account of non-disclosure of material evidence. 23.It is the Respondent's case that the Claimant was employed on 29th March 2021, and not 22nd November 2021 as pleaded, as an Accountant earning a consolidated monthly salary of Kshs. 100,000. 24.It avers that she discharged her duties until March 2024, when the Respondent received a formal report from the Branch Manager, Gateway Mall, alleging that the Claimant had, from as early as January 2024, been withdrawing cash from the Gateway Mall branch without prior authorization or approval from the Respondent's directors, and would subsequently return the funds without disclosure. 25.The Respondent avers that investigations revealed that the Claimant misled the Branch Manager by falsely claiming she had been instructed by the Respondent's directors to collect the funds for use at the Head Office, claims which were untrue and unauthorized. In fact, she had consistently returned the funds after six to seven days in an apparent effort to conceal the financial irregularities and misrepresent the true state of the branch accounts. 26.It is the Respondent's case that the Claimant was accorded an opportunity to respond to the allegations, and during a meeting held on 11th March 2024, she admitted to having taken the funds secretly from the Branch Manager, Syokimau Branch, traded with the same, and later returned them, actions the Respondent contends were intended to avoid detection and accountability. 27.The Respondent avers that in view of these admissions, and in line with best accounting practices, the Claimant was requested to step aside from her duties to enable a comprehensive forensic audit of the Syokimau Branch accounts. 28.It avers that the matter was reported to Mlolongo Police Station, where investigations remain ongoing to establish criminal culpability, the outcome of which the Respondent awaits. 29.The Respondent contends that in light of the Claimant's gross misconduct, which was unlawful, dishonest and in clear contravention of the Company's policies and ethical standards, her employment was terminated on 18th March 2024. 30.The Respondent categorically denies that the termination was malicious, unfair or unlawful, and denies all allegations of malice, breach of natural justice, procedural impropriety or bias, putting the Claimant to strict proof thereof. 31.The Respondent avers that the claim is without basis in fact or law, is false, misleading and an abuse of the process of the Court, and prays that it be dismissed with costs. The jurisdiction of the Court is admitted. Evidence in Court 32.The Claimant witness, (CW1) adopted her witness statement dated 24th October 2024 as her evidence in chief and produced her documents dated even date as her exhibits. 33.During cross-examination, CW1 testified that she was employedin November 2021, however, she never saw the appointment letter produced in court by the Respondent before. 34.CW1 testified that she is a director of Aktiv Flz Kenya Limited and she was the biggest shareholder. John Nyoto was his business partner. 35.She testified that Aktiv Flz supplies general stationary including packaging. 36.CW1 testified that as an accountant she wrote cheques or approved certain cheques Aktiv Flz Kenya Limited, and the said company was paid about Kshs. 700,000. 37.CW1 testified Aktiv Flz was put on the list of suppliers towards the end of 2023 but she did not influence anywhere. 38.She testified that there were statutory audits but she never saw any audit that was done; and neither did they discuss anything with the director on 11th March 2024. 39.She maintained that on 11th March 2024, the director, Mercy Gashwe called her to her office and accused her of trading with the Respondent company and paying suppliers twice. When the meeting concluded, Mercy sent her a text message instructing her to liaise with Njoroge and handover everything she had which she did. She however, testified that the email is not part of the evidence in Court. 40.CW1 testified that Njoroge is the one who approached her to supply the company and that she could not input suppliers in the system. 41.The Respondent’s witness, Mercy Gashwe (RW1) adopted her witness statement dated 28th October 2026 and produced the Respondent’s list of documents dated even date as her exhibits. 42.RW1 testified that the Respondent company conducted an audit and a report was prepared but the report was not produced in court. 43.RW1 testified that she called the Claimant for a disciplinary hearing but did not give her any prior notice and neither did she present the charges to her before the meeting. 44.RW1 testified that David Njoroge is not a director of the Respondent company and did not know the Claimant was allowed to trade with the company. 45.She testified that the Claimant issued cheques and she authorised for payment. She only saw cheques attached with invoices biut she was not aware if work was done. 46.RW1 testified that the Claimant made unauthorised withdrawals of Kshs 269,990 to her company. The goods were delivered again and the Respondent paid again. She testified that upon the second payment, the Branch Manager lodged a complaint via text message. 47.She testified that thereafter she had a meeting with the Claimant which is a different disciplinary hearing whose minutes were produced in court. She presented the documents to her during the meeting. 48.RW1 testified that the minutes are unsigned and they were not sent to the Claimant. Additionally, the Claimant did not go for her termination letter dated 11th March 2024 and the Certificate of service. 49.She testified that the matter was reported to the police and investigations are ongoing. 50.The Respondent’s second witness, David Njoroge (RW2) stated that he works for the Respondent Company and adopted his witness statement dated 28th October 2024 as his evidence in chief. 51.He testified that he indeed approached the Claimant to bring a company to supply packaging and she gave him Aktiv Flz company as a supplier. However, he was not aware that the Claimant was one of the directors in the said company. 52.RW1 testified that employees are not suppose to trade with the Respondent company and that the matter was reported to Mlolongo Police Station OB number 25 of 28/11/2024. However, he is not aware whether the police have concluded their investigation. Claimant’s Submissions 53.The Claimant submitted on four issues: whether the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent and what terms of employment are material to the dispute; whether the Respondent had a valid and fair reason to terminate the Claimant's employment within the meaning of Sections 43, 45 and 47(5) of the Employment Act; whether the Respondent complied with the mandatory procedural requirements under Sections 35(1)(c), 41 and 45 of the Employment Act and the principles of natural justice; and whether the Claimant is entitled fo the reliefs sought under Sections 49 and 50 of the Employment Act. 54.On the first issue, the Claimant submitted that this issue ought not detain the Court, as the Claimant testified and produced bank statements and PAYE returns evidencing her employment as Accountant. Additionally, the Respondent expressly admitted in its Statement of Response that she was employed in November 2021 as an Accountant earning Kshs. 100,000 per month. It was submitted that the Court should therefore find that the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent under a contract of service, and that Kshs. 100,000 is the applicable monthly salary for computation of relief. 55.On the second issue, the Claimant submitted that Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act place upon the employer the burden of proving the reason for termination and demonstrating that it was valid and fair, while Section 47(5) requires the employee to first prove the fact of unfair termination before that burden shifts. 56.Reliance was placed on Sichenje v Computer Revolution Africa Limited [2023] KEELRC 2243 (KLR), where the Court held: “Section 43 of the Employment Act obligates an employer to establish a valid reason for terminating the employment of its employee. In assessing the validity of the reason for termination of employment, the Court is expected to apply the ‘reasonable responses test’ and not to replace the employer’s decision with its own”. 57.She further relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Pius Machafu Isindu v Lavington Security Guards Limited [2014] eKLR, cited in Nzioka v Lemoc Limited [2025] KEELRC 501 (KLR), for the holding that the Act places heavy obligations on employers to prove the reasons for termination, that the reasons are valid and fair, and that the grounds are justified. 58.It was submitted that the Claimant discharged her burden by proving that she was directed to leave immediately on 11th March 2024 without any formal process, thereby shifting the evidentiary burden to the Respondent, which it failed to discharge for four reasons. 59.It is the Claimant’s submission that the allegation of trading with another company collapsed on the Respondent's own evidence, as its witness David Njoroge confirmed that he had requested the Claimant to source a supplier, that the supplier duly performed, and that no loss was occasioned. 60.She further submitted that the alleged unauthorized taking of cash was never proved, as branch cash was handled and banked by branch managers, and no specific date, amount, authorization trail, audit report or reconciliation was produced. Additionally, the police report relied upon, bearing an OB number dated 28th November 2024, was generated after the suit was filed in October 2024, and could not amount to contemporaneous justification but was, at best, an afterthought. 61.It was submitted that the only audit conducted was an annual statutory audit under the Companies Act, 2015, which returned an unqualified opinion disclosing no material misstatement, and that the forensic audit report alleged by the Respondent was never produced. 62.It is the Claimant’s submission that the Respondent did not have a valid and fair reason to terminate the Claimant's employment. 63.On the third issue, the Claimant submitted that the Respondent also failed on the second limb of fairness, in that Section 35(1)(c) of the Employment Act required twenty-eight days' or one month's notice, or pay in lieu, none of which was given, and Section 41 of the Act, being couched in mandatory terms, required the Respondent to explain the grounds of termination, entitle the Claimant to the presence of a representative, and hear and consider her representations before any decision was made. 64.Relying on Nzioka v Lemoc Limited (Supra), where the Court found that the absence of any show cause letter or disciplinary invitation persuaded it that the claimant was condemned unheard and that the termination was procedurally unfair; it was submitted that no notice to show cause was issued. 65.It was further submitted that the five-minute meeting of 11th March 2024 could not be dressed up as a disciplinary hearing, as a hearing must begin with clear allegations, afford adequate notice, disclose the material relied upon, permit representation and a meaningful response, and culminate in a reasoned decision, none of which occurred. 66.Reliance was placed on the Court of Appeal decision in Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui [2019] eKLR, cited in Owiti v Crescent Tech Limited [2025] KEELRC 1866 (KLR), for the four minimum elements of a fair procedure under Section 41, and on New Kenya Co-op Creameries Limited v Adede [2019] KECA 1067 (KLR), where the Court of Appeal held that the repeated use of "shall" renders Section 41 mandatory and that the hearing contemplated must be an oral, physical interaction. 67.The Claimant submitted that she was not issued a notice to show cause, was not furnished with particulars or evidence, was not accorded time to prepare, was denied representation, was not given a reasoned decision, and was afforded no right of appeal. She argued that the Respondent's subsequent attempts to characterize its conduct as an investigation or disciplinary process could not cure the original illegality, as due process must precede, and cannot be manufactured after, termination. 68.On the final issue, the Claimant submitted that having established that the termination was both substantively unjustified and procedurally unfair, she is entitled to relief under Sections 49 and 50 of the Employment Act. 69.She submitted that the Court ought to have regard to her length of service from November 2021 to March 2024, the abrupt and undignified manner of her removal, the absence of any prior disciplinary record or warning, and the reputational stigma of allegations of financial impropriety levelled against an Accountant. 70.It is the Claimant’s submission that the Respondent removed the Claimant first and sought to justify the removal thereafter, the Respondent admitted the employment relationship, the salary, and the absence of any notice to show cause or disciplinary invitation, and that its witness had confirmed no loss was suffered from the supplier transaction relied upon. Respondent’s Submissions 71.The Respondent submitted on four issues: whether the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent conceded; whether the Respondent had a valid and fair reason to terminate the Claimant's employment under Sections 43, 45, and 47(5) of the Employment Act; whether the Respondent complied with the mandatory procedural requirements under Sections 35(1)(c), 41, and 45 of the Employment Act; and whether, and to what extent, the Claimant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought. 72.On the first issue, the Respondent submitted that the issue is conceded and it is not contesting that the Claimant was employed as an Accountant with effect from 29th November 2021 at a consolidated gross monthly salary of Kshs. 100,000. She had been issued a contract of employment forwarded together with a letter of appointment of the same date, setting out her responsibilities. 73.On the second issue, the Respondent submitted that the Claimant's submissions invite the Court to conclude that the Respondent acted on suspicion, afterthought and shifting allegations, however, this characterization is a distortion of the evidence. 74.It was submitted that the Respondent had not one but two independent and concurrent grounds for termination, both supported by documentary and oral evidence, and both constituting clear violations of the Claimant's contract of employment. Reliance was placed on Charles Musungu Odana v Kenya Ports Authority [2019] eKLR for the proposition that "……….the burden placed on an employer by Section 43 of the Employment Act is to establish a valid reason that would cause a reasonable employer to terminate employment." 75.On the unauthorised use of company cash, the Respondent submitted that the Claimant, from as early as January 2024, withdrew cash sales funds from the Gateway Mall branch without directors' authorization, contrary to Clause 16 of her contract which required her to promptly account for and remit monies received in the course of duty. 76.It was submitted that the Claimant misrepresented to the Branch Manager that the directors had instructed her to collect the funds for Head Office, a claim that was untrue, and that she returned the monies after six to seven days in what the Respondent characterized as a deliberate pattern of concealment rather than error. 77.The Respondent submitted that the Claimant’s trial account that she had no access to branch cash, cannot stand against her own admission at the meeting of 11th March 2024, whose records of the minutes show that she solemnly admitted to having taken without approval from the director. It was argued that this admission highest form of internal evidence available to an employer. It cannot be displaced by a bare denial advanced at trial two years later. 78.It was further submitted that Section 43 does not require proof of a quantified loss, dishonesty and breach of trust in a financial role being a valid reason in themselves, and that the fact of the funds' return does not negate the dishonesty but confirms the deliberateness of the concealment. 79.On the undisclosed self-dealing and violation of the contract of employment, the Respondent submitted that the Claimant engaged in undisclosed self-dealing through her company, Aktiv FLZ Kenya Limited, in which the CR12 confirmed she held an 80% beneficial interest as director and majority shareholder, and through which she supplied packaging bags to the Respondent for two payments totaling Kshs. 728,785, processed through the very accounts payable function she oversaw. 80.The Respondent submitted that this fell squarely within the conflict-of-interest prohibition in Clause 19.2 of her contract, that Clause 19.3 recognised such breach as causing substantial and irreparable damage, and that informal disclosure to a colleague could not substitute for the formal institutional consent of the directors, which was neither sought nor given, the Director Ms. Gashwe remaining unaware of the Claimant's interest until it emerged at the inquiry. 81.It is the Respondent’s submission that this was gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal under Clause 20.1, and reliance was placed on Arnold Muoki v Local Productions Kenya Limited [2021] eKLR on conflict of interest. 82.The Respondent submitted that it adopts the reasonable responses test relied upon by the Claimant from Sichenje v Computer Revolution Africa Limited [2023] KEELRC 2243 (KLR) and the Halsbury's formulation. On the evidence before Court, it argued that any reasonable employer upon discovering undisclosed cash withdrawals, misrepresented authority and concurrent self-dealing by its Accountant would not have retained her, the decision to terminate falling within the band of reasonable responses. 83.On the police report, it was submitted that its being made in November 2024, after suit was filed, does not undermine the termination, which was grounded in the Claimant's own admissions and the documentary evidence, the police process being separate and irrelevant to the validity of the internal grounds. 84.On compliance with mandatory procedure, the Respondent submitted that the Claimant's description of the meeting held on 11th March 2024 as a five-minute surprise ambush is inaccurate and selective. It argued that the minutes bear a formal heading and record three distinct agenda items; that the Director personally questioned the Claimant on each; and that the Claimant admitted to both the unauthorized taking of funds and the trading through Aktiv FLZ Kenya Limited, satisfying the requirements of Section 41 that she be told the case against her, in a language she understands, and be heard. 85.It is the Respondent’s submission submitted that the termination letter dated 11th March 2024 confirmed dismissal followed the disciplinary inquiry held on 11/03/2024 on two grounds: two grounds: the unauthorized taking of cash from branch level, and the internal trading. Additionally, a Certificate of Service was prepared in positive terms and an offer to settle terminal dues followed, together with an invitation to complete the handover. 86.It was submitted that the Claimant declined to return for the handover despite the Director's communications of 18th and 31st March 2024, and cannot now complain of procedural unfairness having herself refused to engage in the post-termination process. 87.The Respondent submitted that the authorities the Claimant relied on, Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui [2019] eKLR and New Kenya Co-op Creameries Limited v Adede [2019] KECA 1067 (KLR), concerned employees given no notice, allegations or opportunity to speak, and are distinguishable to the facts of this case. The Respondent submitted that an oral hearing through a face-to-face meeting between the Claimant and the Director in which specific allegations were raised and answered is precisely what took place on 11th March, 2024. 88.On remedies, the Respondent submitted that should the Court find any procedural deficiency, the claim for maximum compensation of twelve months' salary is misconceived and not warranted by the circumstances. 89.It submitted that Section 49 of the Employment Act grants the Court discretion to award compensation not exceeding the equivalent of 12 months gross wages. And when exercising such discretion it should weigh the employee's wishes, the circumstances of termination, the extent of her own contribution to it, and her length of service. 90.It is the Respondent’s submission that the Claimant was the primary author of her own termination through undisclosed self-dealing, unauthorized withdrawals, misrepresentation of authority, and subsequent refusal to participate in the handover, and refused to cooperate with the Respondent's efforts to conclude her separation. An employee who contributes so substantially to her own termination cannot, in equity, be entitled to maximum compensation. 91.The Respondent further submitted that the claim for 34 days' leave requires scrutiny against the Respondent's Memo on Annual Leave, which indicates that leave was to be compensated with Saturdays counted as leave days, with two Saturdays equating to one leave day. The Claimant has not demonstrated that she had 34 days of accrued untaken leave in accordance with the revised policy. 92.The Respondent confirmed its readiness to compensate her for the 11 days worked in March 2024 and to settle any other proved terminal dues. 93.I have examined all the averments of the parties herein plus the submissions. From the evidence on record, the respondents have admitted employing the claimant with effect from 29th March 2022 and not 22/11/22 as pleaded. The respondents further avers that the claimant was involved in fraud by taking money from the respondents’ account and returning it within a few days to avoid being detected. That the claimant admitted to this wrong doing and investigations revealed this financial irregularity and misrepresentation of the true status of the branch accounts. 94.The respondent’s witness testified in court and indicated that an audit was done on these accounts but no report was produced in court. RW1 also indicated that they called Zipporah to a disciplinary hearing but did not give her any prior notice or present the charges to her before the meeting. He averred that upon discovery of the financial irregularities he called the claimant and told her to leave the company. 95.The RW2 indicated that he was the one who approached the claimant to get a company to get packaging materials. He averred that investigations were carried out but he did not see the audit report. 96.From this evidence, it is apparent that Zipporah was condemned unheard. There was no disciplinary hearing conducted if at all under the law as provided under section 41 of the Employment Act 2007 which states as follows was not followed:41.(1).Subject to section 42 (1), an employer shall, before terminating the employment of an employee, on the grounds of misconduct, poor performance or physical incapacity explain to the employee, in a language the employee understands, the reason for which the employer is considering termination and the employee shall be entitled to have another employee or a shop floor union representative 97.Section 45(2) of the Employment Act 2007 states as follows:(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 employees conduct, capacity or compatibility; orii.based on the operational requirements of the employer; and(c)that the employment was terminated in accordance with fair procedure 98.Given the scenario above, it is my finding that the claimant was unfairly and unjustly terminated and I therefore find for her and award her as follows:1.Issuance of a certificate of service.2.1 months’ salary in lieu of notice = Kshs 100,000/-3.Salary for 11 days worked in March and not paid= 36,667/-.4.Leave days worked and not paid = 33 days = 33/30x100,000/-= 111,000/-.5.Due to unfairness meted on her for being terminated without due process, I find 6 months compensation is reasonable in the circumstances which I award at 6x100,000= 600,000/-.Total Awarded = 846,667/- less statutory deductions.6.The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY 2026.HELLEN WASILWAJUDGE