https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1484

Njunge v Kentalya Plc (Cause E012 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1484 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1484 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru Cause E012 of 2025 J Rika, J May 29, 2026 Between Joseph Kiarie Njunge Claimant and Kentalya Plc Respondent Judgment 1.The facts in this matter are similar to the facts in Nakuru Cause Number E011 of 2025, Nancy Wangari Kiarie v. Kentalya PLC; and Nakuru Cause Number E013 of 2025, Margaret Wanjiru Karanja v. Kentalya PLC. 2.The respective Claimants were all employed by the Respondent, and were dismissed on similar grounds. 3.The matters were not consolidated. Each Claimant gave evidence in their respective files. 4.Evidence for the Respondent was however recorded in the Cause herein, Cause Number E012 of 2025, with a directive that the Court Registry shall extract the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses from this file and place in the other 2 files, for completeness of the respective records. 5.The Claimant herein, Joseph Kiarie Njunge, filed a Statement of Claim, amended on 16th June 2025. 6.He states that he was employed by the Respondent on 1st June 2012 as a Workshop and Maintenance in Charge. 7.He rose to occupy the position of Department Head Assistant, Workshop and Maintenance in 2019, earning a monthly salary of Kshs. 171, 720. 8.He was shocked to find his name placed by the Respondent on its notice board, on 6th November 2024, alongside other 4 Employees, announcing that the Claimant was no longer an Employee of the Respondent. 9.There was no complaint against him, and no disciplinary hearing in any form was conducted, leading to termination. 10.There was no justification, and the Claimant never received a letter of termination. 11.Termination offended Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. It was unfair and unlawful. 12.He was denied pay for days worked preceding termination; he was denied his certificate of service; and income tax amounting to Kshs. 153, 217 was deducted from his salary, but not remitted to tax authorities. 13.He did not take annual leave for the last year preceding termination, and was not compensated. 14.He worked for over 12 years. 15.His prayers are: -a.Declaration that termination was unfair and unlawful.b.1-month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 171,172.c.Compensation for unfair termination equivalent of 12 months’ salary at Kshs. 2,054,064.d.Annual leave pay at Kshs. 49,925.e.Severance pay equivalent of 15 days’ salary for 12 years worked, at Kshs. 1,027, 032.f.Salary for 6 days worked prior to termination, at Kshs. 34,234.g.Unremitted income tax at Kshs. 153,217.Total...Kshs. 3,489,644.h.Certificate of service to issue.i.Interest on notice, compensation and severance, at court rate, from the date payment fell due, till payment is made in full. 16.The Respondent filed its Statement of Response dated 14th April 2025. It is not disputed that the Claimant was employed by the Respondent. 17.He carelessly and improperly performed his duty, to the detriment of the Respondent. He was engaged in irregular and fraudulent procurement, in collusion with senior staff, procuring goods for the Respondent at inflated prices. He breached his fiduciary duty to the Respondent, occasioning the Respondent loss of Kshs. 2,930,568. 18.His actions amounted to gross misconduct, and damaged trust between him and the Respondent, making his continued employment untenable. 19.Termination was in accordance with the law and due process. He was issued notice and the Respondent observed statutory and contractual obligations. 20.In collusion with other senior staff, the Claimant incited his juniors to engage in riots and disturbances, which threatened the safety and security of the Respondent’s Executives, and which resulted in paralysis of administrative and operational functions. 21.The Respondent states that the Claim should have been filed at the E&LRC Naivasha, and that the Court in Nakuru lacks jurisdiction. 22.The Claimant gave evidence and rested his Claim, on 13th November 2025. 23.Ludwig Allnoch, a Horticultural Engineer from Germany, working for the Respondent as its Managing Director; Forensic Auditor Anthony Ngige; Head of Human Resources, Noelle Vwamu; and Maximillian Meinzingen, Respondent’s Director of Operations, all gave evidence for the Respondent on 29th January 2026. 24.On 25th February 2026, the Respondent informed the Court it did not wish to call further witnesses, and closed its case. Parties confirmed filing and exchange of their submissions on 14th April 2026. 25.As stated at outset, the evidence by the Respondent’s witnesses was recorded in the proceedings herein, to be extracted and placed in the other 2 files. 26.Joseph Kiarie Njunge, the Claimant herein, adopted his Amended Statement of Claim, Witness Statement and Documents [1-10], in his evidence-in - chief. He restated his employment history, and circumstances leading to termination of his employment, as summarized in his pleadings captured at the outset of this Judgment. 27.He reported for duty on 6th November 2024 at about 10.00 a.m. He heard noises from within. A colleague told him that there was a notice on the board, announcing his dismissal. He was hounded out of the workplace by new security guards, who had been deployed by the Respondent. He received a letter dated 21st November 2024 from the Respondent, asking him to vacate the company house. He did not receive a letter to show cause or dismissal letter. He was not heard. 28.Cross-examined, he told the Court that he heard noises coming from the greenhouses within the workplace. Employees were agitated. The Claimant was not able to tell if they were reacting to the announcement of his dismissal. Days later, he learnt that there was an industrial strife at the workplace. 29.A junior Employee told him that he had been fired. He did not enquire from the Managing Director. Diana Kiarie was the Human Resource Manager. The Claimant did not consult her. He did not report to any government agency. He did contact the Respondent on leaving the company house. 30.The Managing Director retired, and was replaced by a new Managing Director Ludwig. There was peace and stability prior to 6th November 2024. The Claimant was not aware of any changes introduced at the workplace by the new Managing Director. 31.There were more than 60 guards deployed by the Respondent. They would be able to usher the Claimant out. The Claimant did not hear that Police Officers were called in, and that Employees burnt Respondent’s vehicle. There were more than 900 Employees. 32.The Claimant oversaw structures and all machinery. He requisitioned for repair materials. He co-owned a company called Barawa Electricals. It was a supplier of materials to the Respondent. The Claimant disclosed his interest in the supplier. It was an oral disclosure. He was not involved in pricing of the supplied items. 33.He knew about industrial wall socket. He would make an order. Supervisors initiated pre-order. They reported to the Claimant. He would sign pre-order, confirming that the item was required. He was not aware at what price, the Respondent procured the items. He was not involved in the day-to-day business of Barawa Electricals. He did not know if Barawa made profit or losses. He was aware of the principle of conflict of interest. He was not conflicted. 34.There was an audit exercise carried out by the Respondent. It was reported that the Claimant inflated prices of goods supplied by his company Barawa, by over Kshs. 2 million. 35.Barawa is a family business. Irene Kiarie is the Claimant’s wife. Absalom Gitau was the Respondent’s Business Manager, assisting the Managing Director. He was the Human Resource Manager at the time the Claimant was employed, in 2012. The Claimant did not contact the Respondent after he surrendered the company house. 36.Redirected, he told the Court that he did not contact the Respondent after he left the Respondent’s house, because it was clear to him, that he had been dismissed. His role in procurement ended with the preorder. He was not involved in day-to-day operations of Barawa Electricals. 37.Ludwig adopted his Witness Statement and Documents filed by the Respondent [1-9], in his evidence-in-chief. 38.He was employed on 1st May 2024. The previous Managing Director handed over to him in August 2024. Volmary is the Respondent’s mother company, based in Munster, Germany. 39.The Respondent did not have modern structures, with control of finance and procedures. It was open to fraud. The Human Resource Manager Diana Wangare, was the daughter of Absalom Gitau. There was favouritism, nepotism and lack of procedures. Assistants were to record workers’ hours of work. There were no disciplinary rules. 40.Ludwig communicated these shortcomings to the Board of Directors. There were abuses. The previous Managing Director was frequently absent, allowing Absalom Gitau to have a free reign. 41.Gitau had his own company. He purchased his own goods and sold them to the Respondent, his Employer, at inflated prices. Inflation was by 300% to 400%. The Claimant was issued a letter to show cause. He instigated a riot, occasioning the Respondent a lot of damage. 42.Cross-examined, Ludwig told the Court that he was appointed Managing Director on 1st May 2024, but came into office on 1st August 2024. There was a period of handover. He did not exhibit his letter of appointment before the Court. 43.He found weak internal controls and procedures. He escalated the weaknesses to the Board in Germany. He carried out audit. He did not have the preliminary report. There was a financial report from the Respondent’s finance department. It was prepared by Accountant Francis Wangai, who was not a witness lined up for the Respondent. 44.The audit came after the financial report. Ludwig received the report on a date he could not recall. It is dated 16th January 2025. The Claimant had already been dismissed. 45.Ludwig was not sure if there was a policy on conflict of interest. There was a problem on procurement. There was no policy on procurement. There were no documented policies to guide Employees. Absalom was the final signatory in procurement. Audit unearthed forgery, which was not reported to the Police. 46.The Board deliberated on the involved staff. The Claimant had left by the time of the audit. Internal investigations established nepotism. Ludwig did not have a document establishing the relationship between Absalom and Diana Kiarie. 47.The riots coincided with the disciplinary hearing. There was no document showing this coincidence. Ludwig did not constitute a disciplinary committee. He heard the case of the Claimant. He did not have minutes of the hearing. When the riots started, Ludwig and his colleague ran for their lives. 48.The letter of summary dismissal addressed to Diana, is dated 6th November 2024. It indicates that hearing was on the same date. The author of the letter is not shown. It is unsigned. There were 2 summary dismissal letters, one signed by Project Managing Director, who was not an Employee, but was in charge. She was issued a letter to show cause dated 20th November 2024, after the first letter of summary dismissal. 49.Ludwig did not recall if there was a letter to show cause, and letter of summary dismissal, issued to Joseph Kiarie. 50.Page 185 of the Respondent’s documents is the summary dismissal letter. of Claimant Margaret Wanjiru Karanja. It has the same defects as the letter issued to Diana. There was also a letter to show cause issued to Margaret on 20th November 2022, after summary dismissal. 51.Redirected, Ludwig told the Court that he communicated with the Board in Germany through e-mails and meetings. Financial reports confirmed that goods were supplied to the Respondent by its staff at inflated price. Family members of Absalom owned a company which did business with the Respondent. 52.Forensic Auditor Anthony Ngige told the Court that he was engaged by Volmary to audit the Respondent. He filed a Witness Statement dated 18th June 2025, which he adopted as his evidence-in-chief. 53.Cross-examined, he told the Court that his report was not signed. He was given written instructions by Volmary. He did not exhibit the instructions before the Court. He was not issued an engagement letter by Volmary. 54.The report refers to annexure, some which were not annexed. Some were electronic screenshots without certification. The report stated that the Respondent did not verify the validity of documentation. There were interview notes, which were excluded from the report. Audit ended on 16th January 2025. The report could not be used before then. Ngige was not invited to any disciplinary hearing. He did not interview the Claimants. He was told they had already left employment. 55.The report states that it was left to the discretion of Absalom, to decide the policies and procedures. Accountants informed Ngige that Diana managed the petty cash. He did not establish that Margaret and Wangai were junior staff. Diana was paid a house allowance. She was not entitled to house allowance. Her contract gave her a consolidated salary. Ngige was informed that Diana resided at the workplace in 2023, and earned a house allowance. Redirected, Ngige restated that the Respondent did not have formal policies and procedures. 56.Noelle Vwamu, Head of Human Resources adopted her Witness Statement and Documents filed by the Respondent, as her evidence -in-chief. 57.She testified on cross-examination that she has a human resource management practicing certificate. She was employed by the Respondent in 2024. She did not have her letter of appointment. There were various policies in place. There was one handling disciplinary matters. Margaret was still in employment, when Noelle joined, on 25th November 2024. Noelle was aware about a notice dated 6th November 2024, listing Margaret as one of the Employees who had been dismissed. There was a letter to show cause issued to Margaret dated 20th November 2024, after dismissal. The letter of dismissal was unsigned. 58.Maximillian Meinzingen, like his colleagues, adopted his Witness Statement and Documents, in his evidence-in-chief. 59.He added that he instructed Respondent’s security guards that they would be partnering with external guards, on 6th November 2024. Employees were rowdy, later becoming violent. Meinzingen saw them slap the General Manager. The General Manager and his Lawyer, escaped in their cars. Meinzingen was stoned by the riotous Employees, as he drove off. He crushed through the gate to get away from the raucous crowd, 60.The cross-examination of Meinzingen was confined to one question: whether he had made reference to any of the Claimants in his evidence. He told the Court that he did not. 61.The issues are whether the Claimant, Joseph Kiarie Njunge’s contract was terminated by the Respondent through a fair procedure, under Section 41 and 45 of the Employment Act; whether it was justifiable under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act; and whether he is entitled to the remedies sought. The Court Finds: - 62.It is common ground that the Claimant, Joseph Kiarie Njunge was employed by the Respondent on 1st June 2012, as a Workshop and Maintenance In- Charge. 63.He was promoted, and last held the position of Department Head Assistant, Workshop and Maintenance as of the date he left employment on 6th November 2024. 64.Procedure: The Claimant told the Court that he reported for work on 6th November 2024. He heard noises around the workplace. A colleague told him that he [Claimant], had been dismissed. He was informed that his name was listed on the notice board, in a notice that communicated dismissal of the Claimant and others. He was hounded out of the workplace by new Security Guards, brought in by the Respondent. He received a letter dated 21st November 2024 from the Respondent, asking him to vacate the company house. 65.He was not issued a letter to show cause. No charges were communicated to him. He was not taken through a disciplinary hearing. 66.The Witnesses for the Respondent largely supported the Claimant’s position, on defects in the procedure adopted by the Respondent, in terminating the Claimant’s contract of employment. 67.Ludwig told the Court that he received the audit report on 16th January 2025. The Claimant had already exited. Ludwig did not form a disciplinary panel to hear the Claimant. He claimed to have heard the Claimant himself. He did not have the minutes of any hearing. He explained that the riots started, and he had to take to his heels. He did not recall if there was a letter to show cause, issued to the Claimant. He recalled signing a letter dated 6th November 2024, listing names of Employees, who were no longer employed by the Respondent. The Claimant’s name was listed. 68.Forensic Auditor Anthony Ngige confirmed that he finalized his report on 16th January 2025. It could not be used in a disciplinary process before this date. He did not interview any of the Claimants. He was told that they had already exited. He was not invited to any disciplinary hearing. 69.Head of Human Resource, Manager Noelle, did not have anything showing that the Claimant was taken through a disciplinary hearing. She was aware of the list displayed on the notice board, indicating that the Claimant, and others, had been dismissed. Meinzingen likewise, did not inform the Court about any disciplinary hearing, that the Respondent took the Claimant through. 70.From the evidence of Witnesses on both sides, it is clear that no disciplinary hearing took place, before the Claimant was dismissed. Dismissal was through a notice placed on the notice board, on 6th November 2024. There was no letter to show cause, disclosing any employment offence. The Claimant was not invited to any disciplinary hearing. He was not heard. Ludwig alluded to having heard the Claimant himself. Such a hearing was not documented, and Ludwig was not in a position to grant such a hearing. He told the Court that he fled the workplace, breaking through the gate to get away from the irate Employees, to save his life. 71.Even assuming the conditions did not allow the Respondent to conduct a disciplinary hearing on 6th November 2024, there was opportunity to arrange for a proper disciplinary hearing after the riot had been quelled. The Respondent opted not to wait for the situation to calm down, and dismissed the Claimant without a hearing, through a notice on the board. 72.Procedure was way below the minimum statutory standards of fairness under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act. 73.Validity of reasons: As concluded in analysis of procedure above, there was no letter to show cause issued to the Claimant, and no disciplinary hearing took place. 74.There was no letter of summary dismissal issued to the Claimant. The Respondent merely pasted a notice on the board, informing readers at large, that the Claimant had been dismissed. 75.There were therefore no charges, and no reasons stated to the Claimant, leading to his dismissal. 76.The allegations that the Claimant engaged in irregular and fraudulent procurement practices; that he failed in his fiduciary duties; that he instigated riots; and that his conduct damaged trust between him and the Respondent, were allegations that were never presented to the Claimant in formal charges. He was never tried for these allegations, and found culpable. 77.The Respondent dismissed him, then went looking for justification, after the decision. 78.Most of the evidence on the allegations against the Claimant, revolving around procurement, insider trading and nepotism were contained in the audit report. 79.It was common evidence however, that the audit report, was generated on 16th January 2025, after the Claimant had been dismissed. 80.Ludwig did not have the audit report when the Claimant’s name was pasted on the notice board, on 6th November 2024. He did not have any preliminary report, and none was exhibited before the Court. He told the Court that the Respondent did not have a procurement policy to guide Employees. It did not have a policy on conflict of interest. Staff who traded with the Respondent, told the Court that they did so, with the concurrence of the Respondent’s previous Managing Director. Ludwig did not have a document establishing blood relationships at the workplace. 81.Ngige confirmed that audit disclosed there were irregularities and fraud. But this disclosure, was after the Claimant had been dismissed. 82.No only did Ngige confirm that his report was not available to justify termination, at the time of Claimant’s dismissal, but also highlighted other fundamental infirmities, in the audit exercise. 83.The Claimant was not interviewed by Ngige, as he was no longer at the workplace. The audit report was not signed. Not a single page was signed. Electronic data was uncertified. The report states that validity of documents relied upon, was not verified. Notes taken during the exercise were not annexed to the report. Policies and procedures were not availed to Ngige. He was never called at any disciplinary hearing to present his findings. 84.Validity of reason or reasons, justifying termination under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, is established at the time of termination. Section 43 refers to ‘’reason or reasons for termination of a contract are matters, that the Employer, at the time of termination of the contract, genuinely believed to exist, and which caused the Employer to terminate the services of the Employee.’’ Validity cannot be established, after termination decision has been taken. Justification is not retrospective. The auditor’s report, however damning it was against the Claimant, did not establish valid reason or reasons justifying termination, at the time the Respondent terminated his contract. 85.Termination was not based of valid grounds, under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. 86.Remedies: It is declared that termination was unfair and unlawful. 87.The Claimant’s letter of employment dated 1st June 2012, provided for a notice period of 45 days, if the Claimant worked for more than 5 years. He would be paid 45 days’ salary in lieu of such notice. There is no document seen by the Court, varying the notice period. 88.The Claimant worked for 12 years, and would merit notice of 45 days He however specifically pleads, and is granted 30 days’ notice, at Kshs. 171,172. 89.He worked for 12 years and 5 months. It was not established that he caused, or contributed to the circumstances leading to termination of his employment. He was not paid any terminal dues. He did not disclose to the Court if he secured alternative job after he ceased to be an Employee of the Respondent. He was on permanent and pensionable terms. 90.He is allowed the prayer for compensation for unfair termination, equivalent of 12 months’ gross salary at Kshs. 2,054, 064. 91.The Claimant told the Court that he was not allowed to utilize his annual leave, in his last year of service. His prayer for annual leave computed at Kshs. 49,925 was not articulated in his evidence. The contract executed in 2012, entitled him to 26 days of annual leave. He did not explain why he adopted an annual leave entitlement of 30 days. His computation and evidence surrounding annual leave pay was not understood by the Court. The item is not supported by evidence, and is declined. 92.Severance pay claimed at Kshs. 1,027,032 is without legal and factual foundation. Severance pay is a creature of Section 40 of the Employment Act, concerning redundancy. Termination was not through redundancy. The prayer is declined. 93.He exited on 6th November 2024, and merits salary for the 6 days worked in November 2024. The prayer is allowed at Kshs. 34,234. 94.Unpaid income tax was not established through documentation from income tax authorities. If it was deducted and not remitted, that is an income tax dispute that should properly be investigated and litigated at Kenya Revenue Authority. The prayer for refund is declined. 95.Certificate of service to issue. 96.Interest granted at court rate, from the date of Judgment, till payment is satisfied in full. 97.No order for costs is pleaded, and none is granted.In sum, it is ordered: -a.It is declared that termination was unfair and unlawful.b.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant notice of 1-month at 171,172; compensation at Kshs. 2,054, 064; salary for 6 days worked at Kshs. 34,234- total Kshs. 2,259,470.c.Certificate of Service to issue.d.Interest allowed 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 RULES, 2024, THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 2026.JAMES RIKAJUDGE