https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/155

Ndeto v Siginon Group Ltd (Cause E572 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 155 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 155 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Mombasa Law Courts Cause E572 of 2025 EM Mwamuye, SRM June 25, 2026 Between Joseph Ndunga Ndeto Claimant and Siginon Group Limited Respondent Judgment Introduction 1.The Claimant commenced these proceedings by a Memorandum of Claim dated 26th August 2025 seeking a declaration that his termination from employment was unlawful, unfair and wrongful, compensation for unfair termination, damages for defamation, payment of accrued dues, issuance of a certificate of service, costs and interest. 2.The Respondent entered appearance and filed a Response to the Claim. Subsequently, when the matter came up before Court, the parties agreed to proceed under Rule 59 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules by way of pleadings, witness statements, documents and written submissions. 3.The Claimant filed written submissions. Although the Respondent had filed a Statement of Response and witness statements, it did not file written submissions despite being afforded an opportunity to do so. 4.The Court has considered the pleadings, witness statements, documentary evidence and the submissions filed. Issues for Determination 5.The issues arising for determination are:-i.Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was procedurally fair.ii.Whether the Respondent proved a valid and fair reason for termination.iii.Whether the Claimant proved his claim for defamation.iv.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought. Whether the Termination was Procedurally Fair 6.The law governing procedural fairness is found in Section 41 of the Employment Act. 7.An employer intending to terminate employment on grounds of misconduct must: Explain the allegations to the employee in a language the employee understands; Permit the employee to be accompanied by a fellow employee or shop floor representative; Hear and consider the employee's representations before making a decision. 8.The evidence before Court shows that the Claimant was issued with a Notice to Show Cause dated 19th June 2024 alleging that he had deviated from the authorised route, parked at an unauthorised location and participated in the illegal sale of client cargo. 9.The Claimant responded to the notice on 20th June 2024 denying the allegations and explaining that the temporary deviation was occasioned by traffic congestion and safety concerns around Masimba. 10.The Respondent's pleaded case was that a disciplinary hearing was conducted on 4th July 2024 and that the Claimant attended the hearing accompanied by a witness. Minutes of the hearing were produced. 11.Although the Respondent did not file submissions, the documentary record before Court demonstrates that the Claimant was informed of the accusations against him, was invited to respond and was accorded a hearing before the termination decision was made. 12.The Court therefore finds that the minimum procedural requirements under Section 41 of the Employment Act were substantially complied with. 13.Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded that the termination was procedurally unfair. Whether the Respondent Proved a Valid And Fair Reason for Termination 14.Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act require an employer to prove the reasons for termination and demonstrate that those reasons were valid and fair. 15.The accusations against the Claimant were serious. He was accused of: Deviating from the authorised route; Stopping at Masimba, a prohibited location; Participating in the unlawful sale of client cargo; Colluding with unknown persons to conceal the theft. 16.The Claimant denied the allegations and relied on: Delivery Note; Goods Consignment Note; Weighbridge Ticket; which he stated established that the cargo was delivered intact. 17.However, the Respondent's evidence was not limited to the fact of route deviation. The Respondent produced: GPS tracking records; Route logs; Investigation reports; Photographs; Evidence relating to investigations into cargo theft at Masimba; Evidence linking several drivers to an organised scheme involving diversion and offloading of excess cargo. 18.The Court notes that an employer is not required to prove misconduct beyond reasonable doubt. The applicable standard is whether the employer had reasonable and sufficient grounds to genuinely believe that misconduct had occurred. 19.This principle was settled in Kenfreight (EA) Limited v Benson K. Nguti [2016] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal held that the test is whether the employer genuinely believed on reasonable grounds that the employee was guilty of misconduct. 20.The Respondent's investigations revealed that: The Claimant's vehicle left the approved route. The vehicle entered an unauthorised premises. The stop occurred in an area known for cargo pilferage. The Claimant admittedly departed from the approved route. 21.While the Claimant explained that the deviation was due to traffic and safety concerns, the Court finds that the explanation did not satisfactorily address why the vehicle entered an unauthorised premises off the designated route. 22.Employment relationships involving logistics and transportation depend heavily on trust and strict compliance with operational procedures. 23.The Court is therefore satisfied that the Respondent had reasonable and sufficient grounds to conclude that the Claimant had breached company transport policies and that the trust necessary to sustain the employment relationship had been compromised. 24.The Court consequently finds that the Respondent established a valid and fair reason for termination within the meaning of Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. Whether the Claimant Proved Defamation 25.The Claimant seeks damages for defamation arising from allegations that he diverted cargo and colluded in its illegal sale. 26.To succeed in a claim for defamation, a claimant must prove: Publication of the defamatory words; That the words referred to the claimant; That the words were false; That they were communicated to third parties; That injury resulted. 27.The allegations complained of were contained in internal disciplinary documents generated during an employment investigation. The evidence before Court does not demonstrate publication beyond the disciplinary process. No evidence was tendered showing publication to outsiders, prospective employers, customers or members of the public. Further, the accusations arose from an investigation conducted by the employer in the course of disciplinary proceedings and therefore attracted qualified privilege. 28.The Court agrees with the Respondent's pleaded position that communications made during bona fide disciplinary proceedings do not automatically amount to defamation merely because the employee disputes the allegations. 29.The Claimant therefore failed to prove the tort of defamation on a balance of probabilities. The claim for damages for defamation consequently fails. Remedies 30.Having found that the Respondent established a valid and fair reason for termination and substantially complied with procedural requirements, the Court finds that the termination was lawful and fair. 31.Accordingly:i.Declaration of Unfair Termination- Declined.ii.Compensation for Unfair Termination- The claim for compensation under Section 49 of the Employment Act fails.iii.Damages for Defamation- The claim for damages for defamation is dismissed.iv.Accrued Terminal Dues- No specific unpaid terminal dues were pleaded, particularised or proved. The Court therefore declines the claim under this head.v.Certificate of Service- Section 51 of the Employment Act makes issuance of a certificate of service mandatory. The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service within thirty (30) days if it has not already done so. Disposition 32.The Court enters judgment as follows:a.The Claimant has failed to prove that his termination was unfair, unlawful or wrongful.b.The claims for compensation for unfair termination and damages for defamation are dismissed.c.The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service within thirty (30) days if not already issued.d.Each party shall bear its own costs.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOSFT TEAMS AT MOMBASA THIS 25TH JUNE 2026.……………………………………………….EMILY M. MWAMUYESENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE