https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1361

Ogindo v H. B. Fuller Kenya Limited (Cause E541 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1361 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1361 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Cause E541 of 2024 CN Baari, J May 21, 2026 Between Shadrack Ogindo Claimant and H. B. Fuller Kenya Limited Respondent Judgment Introduction 1.This judgment relates to the Claimant’s Statement of Claim dated 15th July, 2024, and filed in court on 2nd August, 2024. Under the claim, the Claimant seeks the following reliefs: -a.A declaration that the Claimant’s employment was unfairly and unlawfully terminated;b.Payment of 1 month’s salary in lieu of notice in the sum of KES. 1,766,500/=;c.Compensation for unfair and unlawful termination equivalent to 12 months’ salary in the sum of KES. 21,198,000.00.d.Computation/disclosure and payment of the Claimant’s entitlements under the Long Term Incentive Plan;e.Computation/disclosure and payment of the Claimant’s unpaid bonuses and entitlements under the Short-Term Incentive Plan;f.Damages for unfair labour practices;g.Damages for racial discrimination;h.Interest on (b), (c), (d), (e) (f) and (g) above at Court rates from the date of filing this Claim;i.The Claimant’s Certificate of Service;j.The release and return of the Claimant’s original medical records relating to a full medical check-up conducted in 2023, copies of his university degree certificate, postgraduate diploma certificate, and high school certificate, all of which the Respondent has retained and/ or failed to account for;k.Costs of this Claim. 2.The Respondent, with the leave of the court, filed an Amended Response to the Claim dated 22nd October, 2024, denying the Claimant’s Claim. 3.The Claimant’s case was heard on 30th June, 2025, when the Claimant testified in support of his case. He adopted his witness statement dated 15th July, 2024, and produced his list and bundle of documents of even date as exhibits in the matter, and were admitted as exhibits Numbers 1-27. 4.The Respondent’s case was subsequently fixed for hearing on 17th November, 2025, but on the hearing date, the Respondent, through Counsel, indicated to the court that it had resolved to close its case without calling a witness. 5.Submissions were filed for both parties in the matter and have been duly considered. The Claimant’s Case 6.The Claimant’s case is that he was employed by the Respondent as Business Manager, East Africa, effective 1st April 2017 through an offer Letter dated 1st February 2017, which he accepted by signing on the same date. 7.The Claimant avers that he faithfully and diligently served the Respondent with dedication and professionalism until 15th March 2024, when his employment was terminated abruptly, unfairly, and unlawfully. 8.The Claimant states that during his employment, he rose through the ranks from General Manager, East & West Africa Labeling Segment Manager, Africa, to Business Director for Africa. He avers that he was recognized as an exceptional employee, receiving the Respondent’s prestigious Essence Award in 2023 and consistently attaining the highest performance rating of “exceeded expectations.” 9.It is his case that he participated in the Long Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) and Short Term Incentive Program (STIP), under which he also received awards. He asserts that he was appointed as a director of the Respondent and of the Respondent’s South African entity. 10.The Claimant avers that while on paternity leave on 12th March 2024, he received a call from Mr. Harsh Gupta, the H.B. Fuller Vice President, India, Middle East and Africa, requesting him to urgently travel to Egypt. He states that owing to anticipated visa difficulties, Mr. Gupta subsequently directed the Claimant to travel urgently to Dubai to meet him and Ms. Heather Campe, the H.B. Fuller Senior Vice President, International Growth Markets, purportedly to discuss the “optimization of the Egypt plant.” 11.The Claimant further states that during a discussion on 13th March 2024, Ms. Campe emphasized the urgency of the meeting and indicated that she wished to meet him in person while she was in the region. The Claimant further avers that despite being on paternity leave and attending to his sick wife, who was recovering from surgery, he agreed to travel to Dubai due to the urgency of the request. 12.The Claimant avers that the urgent request by Mr. Gupta and Ms. Campe for him to travel to Dubai under the pretext of attending a meeting on the “optimization of the Egypt plant” was a calculated scheme intended to lure him out of Kenya in order to unlawfully, unfairly, and maliciously terminate his employment on foreign soil. He states that upon arriving in Dubai on the morning of 15th March 2024, he received details of the scheduled meeting and proceeded to the venue, where he found Mr. Gupta, Ms. Heather Campe, and Mr. Ajay Singh, the H.B. Fuller Human Resources Director. 13.The Claimant avers that during the purported “urgent meeting,” his employment was summarily terminated without prior notice, without any advance disclosure of the allegations against him, and without being afforded an opportunity to respond. 14.He states that Ms. Heather Campe informed him that the matter related to alleged gross misconduct warranting termination and emphasized that a final decision had already been made, with no further details to be disclosed on grounds of confidentiality. 15.The Claimant further avers that Mr. Ajay Singh presented him with pre-prepared termination and resignation letters dated 15th March 2024, which he declined to sign due to lack of explanation or background information. 16.The Claimant states that after briefly being asked to leave and later re-enter the meeting room, Mr. Gupta and Ms. Campe confirmed that the Respondent had resolved to terminate his employment. He avers that when he sought clarification on the reasons for termination, he was only informed of an alleged “violation of the code of conduct,” while requests for full particulars were declined on grounds of confidentiality. 17.The Claimant maintains that he was denied an opportunity to respond to the allegations or participate in the investigation process, despite being informed that the decision was based on investigations conducted by an external investigator without his knowledge. 18.He further states that Mr. Singh informed him that, following the termination, he was barred from accessing the Respondent’s premises and systems, that his work email access had been disabled, and he was required to immediately surrender his work phone and laptop. 19.The Claimant further avers that on 19th March 2024, Mr. Gupta and Mr. Ajay Singh met with him in Nairobi and, for the first time, verbally explained the reasons for the termination of his employment. According to the Claimant, Mr. Gupta stated that the Respondent was only then able to provide additional information after receiving clearance from its lawyers and obtaining consent from the Claimant’s accuser to disclose the information. 20.The Claimant further states that Mr. Gupta belatedly sought his response to the allegations, prompting him to question why his explanation was being sought after the termination had already been effected rather than during the investigation process. 21.The Claimant avers that during the meeting, he returned all the Respondent’s property in his possession together with a duly completed clearance form. He further states that Mr. Gupta requested that he sign the termination and director resignation letters, but he declined, indicating that he needed more time to reflect on the information shared with him. 22.The Claimant avers that through emails dated 22nd March 2024 and 5th April 2024, he requested the Respondent to furnish him with full particulars of the reasons for his termination, together with copies of the documents and materials relied upon in arriving at the decision to terminate his employment. 23.He further states that only the email of 22nd March 2024 received a response, which was sent on 5th April 2024. He avers that the said response was unsatisfactory as the Respondent declined to provide the requested information, documents, and materials on the basis that they constituted the Respondent’s property and/or were confidential. 24.The Claimant avers that the Respondent’s decision to terminate his employment was illegal, unlawful, and procedurally unfair for being in breach of the mandatory provisions of Kenyan employment law. He further contends that the termination was illegitimate, irregular, and discriminatory as it was effected without valid reasons and in disregard of the due process ordinarily accorded to the Respondent’s employees and H.B. Fuller staff globally. 25.The Claimant states that the termination was malicious and intended to humiliate him and occasion him loss of employment. 26.The Claimant avers that the manner in which he was treated before, during, and after the termination of his employment was substantively and procedurally unfair, unlawful, and amounted to unfair labour practices and racial discrimination. 27.The Claimant contends that his employment was terminated abruptly without notice and without prior disclosure or proof of the allegations against him, and denied an opportunity to respond to the allegations, either personally or through a representative of his choice, before the decision to terminate his employment was made. He maintains that the Respondent’s justification for termination was therefore unjustified and unfair. 28.The Claimant further states that he was denied the right to appeal the decision and was not afforded an opportunity to personally collect his belongings from the Respondent’s premises. He avers that some of his personal effects were packed in an unsealed carton and delivered through a freelance messenger to the security office of his residential apartment without any instructions or inventory. 29.It is his case that the Respondent failed to ensure the proper collection, security, confidentiality, and preservation of his personal effects and documents. He further avers that the treatment meted out to him was racially discriminatory on account of his being a black African, contending that the Respondent and the H.B. Fuller group had never treated Caucasian or Asian employees in a similar manner. In support of this allegation, the Claimant cites an instance involving a senior white employee in South Africa where, according to him, allegations of misconduct were resolved through a mutual agreement and discreet handling of the matter. 30.The Claimant avers that as a result of the manner in which the Respondent handled his personal effects and personal documents, his data protection rights were violated through unauthorized access and disclosure of his personal data and information. He contends that such data was exposed to the individual who removed the items from his office, the person who packed them into an unsealed carton, the freelance messenger/rider who delivered them, and the security personnel at his residential apartment building. 31.The Claimant further avers that the Respondent has retained and/or failed to account for several of his personal documents, including original medical records relating to a full medical check-up conducted in 2023, as well as copies of his university degree certificate, post-graduate diploma certificate, and high school certificate, all of which he states were kept securely locked at his office. 32.The Claimant avers that following the termination of his employment, he did not receive several contractual entitlements, including one month’s salary in lieu of notice amounting to KES 1,766,500/-, as well as the computation and payment of his dues under both the Short-Term Incentive Plan (STIP) and the Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP). 33.The Claimant further avers that the termination of his employment has caused him financial loss, loss of employment, anxiety, and significant emotional distress. He states that he sought compensation for what he considers an unfair and unlawful termination by the Respondent, but those efforts were unsuccessful. 34.On cross-examination, the Claimant confirmed that he was promoted to Director, Africa, reporting to Mr. Gupta, and was the only local Board member. He further confirmed that he traveled to Dubai and India in January 2024, and to South Africa in February 2024, all on official assignments. 35.The Claimant confirmed that he was aware of the Respondent’s Code of Conduct, and is further aware that it prohibits relationships between a manager and a subordinate staff member. It is his testimony that breach of the Code is a serious matter that required confidentiality. 36.It is his position that in the meeting in Dubai, Mr. Gupta read out the termination letter and explained the reasons for the termination of his employment. He confirmed that one of the reasons for the termination was that he was untruthful during the investigation into an intimate relationship with a subordinate. 37.It is his testimony that he had an intimate relationship with one PK, an account then with the Respondent, who was his subordinate. He confirmed that he had contacted her several times during the investigation, but denied discussing the issue under investigation with her. 38.It is his case that he was paid three (3) months' salary at the termination of his services. He confirmed that a letter dated 24th January, 2024, speaks to incentives and confirmed that bonuses were discretionary. It is his case that he accepted the terms of the letter. 39.The Claimant further confirmed on cross-examination that he received sales incentives in February 2024 for November 2023. 40.It is the Claimant’s testimony that he has not led evidence of racial discrimination and has also not produced evidence that whites from South Africa were given preferential treatment. 41.The claimant confirmed that his career trend was always upward and had earned over Kes.20,000,000/- in incentives. 42.It is the Claimant’s prayer that the court allow his Claim and grant him the reliefs listed in his statement of claim. The Respondent’s Case. 43.The Respondent states that it partially admits that the procedure followed in terminating the Claimant did not strictly comply with sections 41(1) and (2) of the Employment Act, but contends that the termination was substantively fair and in line with fair labour practices. 44.It further avers that it convened a meeting with the Claimant and, as far as practicable in the circumstances, explained the reasons for termination. The Respondent further states that by holding the meeting outside the workplace and involving senior executives, it accorded the Claimant discretion and sensitivity, given the nature of the allegations and his senior position. Additionally, the Respondent contends that the Claimant was later given an opportunity to raise concerns regarding the termination procedure and that a subsequent meeting held with him effectively constituted an appeal process. 45.The Respondent further avers that it paid the Claimant three (3) months’ salary in lieu of notice, notwithstanding that his conduct was such as to warrant summary dismissal. 46.The Respondent denies that the Claimant’s dismissal was wrongful or unfair and pleads that he was terminated for gross misconduct, including conduct amounting to discrimination, harassment, and sexual harassment. 47.It further avers that the Claimant breached the trust placed in him by the Respondent by allegedly using his position to threaten, intimidate, and harass subordinate staff, and by deliberately misleading the Respondent, during an investigation, despite having undertaken in writing to cooperate fully. The Respondent also contends that his conduct exposed it to potential legal liability. 48.The Respondent further states that the Claimant knew, or ought to have known, that such conduct would not be tolerated, and that he nevertheless misled investigators engaged by the Respondent, notwithstanding his otherwise satisfactory performance history. 49.It is the Respondent’s case that the Claimant was their employee, having been employed from April 2017 until March 2024. 50.It is the Respondent’s case that on 27th November 2023, a complaint was lodged through its ethics reporting hotline. It avers that under its Code of Business Conduct and Law Policy Violation Reporting and Anti-retaliation Policy, employees are required to report known or suspected violations of law or policy, and may do so via a secure and confidential ethics hotline if they are uncomfortable using normal reporting channels. 51.The Respondent further states that complaints made through the hotline are forwarded to the Ethics & Compliance team for investigation. It states that the hotline may be used to report matters including discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment, conduct of superiors, and other sensitive concerns. 52.It is its case that the Complainant is identified as an employee within the Claimant business unit and his subordinate, and is stated to have resigned shortly after making the Initial Complaint. 53.The Respondent further states that the initial complaint against the Claimant related to allegations of discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment, and retaliation in the workplace. It avers that it was alleged that on or about 2019, the Claimant and the Complainant began a romantic relationship, and that he created an environment in which the Complainant felt pressured to enter into and continue the relationship despite her reservations. 54.The Respondent states that it was further alleged that on or about 2020, the Complainant ended the relationship, after which the Claimant created a toxic work environment for her. 55.The Respondent states that from January 2024 it conducted a comprehensive independent investigation into the allegations raised in the initial complaint and related issues concerning workplace culture within the Claimant’s business unit. 56.It avers further that the investigation included interviews with numerous employees, including both the Claimant and the Complainant, and that the investigation found that the Complainant and the Claimant had engaged in an intimate relationship in contravention of the Fair Treatment Policy, which prohibits supervisors from engaging in intimate relationships with subordinates, and that there was prima facie evidence of sexual harassment within the meaning of that policy. 57.The Respondent further avers that in February 2024, its legal representatives engaged the Complainant regarding her allegations of sexual harassment, harassment, discrimination, and retaliation by the Claimant, and that those engagements revealed further allegations of misconduct, including unprofessional personal advances, invitations for after-hours social engagements, sexual intercourse during a business trip, victimisation following the end of the relationship, and alleged adverse conduct towards the Complainant after she refused to terminate a pregnancy at the Claimant’s request. 58.It is the Respondent’s case that, as a consequence of the romantic relationship between the Complainant and the Claimant, they had two children together, and that during the course of the investigation, the Claimant attempted to contact the Complainant and issued threats to her. 59.The Respondent states that on 1st March 2024, its representatives interviewed the Claimant regarding the allegations under investigation, and that he falsely denied having had a romantic relationship with any employee or former employee. It avers that, following the investigation, the findings of misconduct and his dishonesty, it resolved to summarily dismiss him. 60.It is its case that due to the sensitive nature of the matter, the dismissal process was structured to protect the Complainant’s identity, safety, dignity, and constitutional rights, while preventing retaliation and encouraging the reporting of harassment and sexual misconduct. 61.The Respondent avers that it invited the Claimant to a meeting in Dubai on or about 12th March 2024 with senior company representatives, during which the identity of the Complainant was withheld to protect her rights and interests. 62.It avers further that the Claimant was informed that investigations had confirmed that he engaged in an improper relationship with a subordinate, including acts of harassment and sexual harassment, in breach of the company’s Fair Treatment Policy. It avers that he was reminded that he had previously denied any intimate relationship during the investigation and was given an opportunity to respond, but he continued to deny the allegations and any wrongdoing. 63.It avers that it thereafter dismissed the Claimant and, notwithstanding that the circumstances justified summary dismissal, it paid him three months’ salary in lieu of notice. 64.The Respondent contends that the Claimant's dismissal was substantively justified and based on valid and fair reasons, the company having determined that he had violated its Fair Treatment Policy by engaging in harassment, sexual harassment, and/or an intimate relationship with a subordinate. It further states that his conduct contravened the Employment Act through acts of discrimination, harassment, and sexual harassment, fundamentally breaching his contract of employment, and failed to meet the company’s ethical standards and practices. 65.It states further that the Claimant acted dishonestly by misleading the company during the internal investigation despite undertaking to cooperate, which conduct amounted to gross misconduct warranting dismissal. 66.The Respondent maintains that the Claimant’s dismissal was lawful, fair, and procedurally proper. It avers that he was informed of the allegations against him, given an opportunity to respond, and offered the option of resigning with three months’ pay in lieu of dismissal, which he declined. 67.It further denies that the termination was racially motivated or that any personal information was improperly disclosed. It contends that the dismissal process was necessary due to the sensitive nature of the misconduct allegations and that, in any event, the Claimant’s conduct substantially contributed to his termination. 68.The Respondent states that the Claimant was validly dismissed for gross misconduct involving harassment, sexual harassment, dishonesty, and breach of company policy. It states that his conduct endangered employees, violated prior commitments to comply with company policies, and directly caused his termination. 69.The Respondent further maintains that the Claimant had previously received a warning for misconduct, later breached the Fair Treatment Policy by engaging in an improper relationship with a subordinate, and lied during the investigation. 70.The Respondent finally denies liability for unfair termination, discrimination, or further compensation, asserting that the Claimant was already paid three months’ salary in lieu of notice together with all outstanding dues and benefits. 71.It also states that his certificate of service and personal belongings were made available to him, and asks the Court to deny him costs due to his misconduct and breach of trust. 72.The Respondent prays that the court dismiss the Claimant’s claim with costs. Analysis and Determination 73.I have carefully considered the pleadings, the Claimant’s oral testimony, the documentary evidence, and the rival submissions. The issues for determination are: -i.Whether the Claimant’s termination was procedurally and substantively fair.ii.Whether the Claimant was subjected to racial discrimination and unfair labour practices.iii.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought. Whether the Claimant’s termination was procedurally and substantively fair 74.Sections 41, 43, and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007, require that an employer must prove both the validity of the reason (s) for termination of employment as well as the fairness of the procedure adopted in effecting the termination. 75.Section 41 specifically mandates that before termination, an employee must be informed of the charges against them and afforded an opportunity to respond in the presence of a fellow employee or union representative of their choice if the employee is a member of a union. 76.Section 43(1), on the other hand, places the burden on the employer to prove the reasons for termination, and where the employer fails to do so, such termination is deemed unfair and unlawful. The Court of Appeal in the case of Pius Machafu Isindu v Lavington Security Guards Limited [2017] eKLR held:-“….. The employer must prove the reasons for termination/dismissal (section 43); prove the reasons are valid and fair (section 45); prove that the grounds are justified (section 47 (5), amongst other provisions.” 77.On substantive fairness, the Respondent’s position is that the Claimant engaged in an intimate relationship with a subordinate employee in contravention of its Fair Treatment Policy, that he committed acts of harassment and sexual harassment, and that he lied during an internal investigation, and finally that he communicated with the complainant with the intention to interfere with the investigations. 78.On his part, the Claimant admitted during cross-examination that he was aware of the Respondent’s Code of Conduct prohibiting relationships between supervisors and subordinates, that breach of the Code was a serious matter, that he had an intimate relationship with one PK, who was his subordinate, and finally that he was informed during the Dubai meeting that one of the grounds for termination was dishonesty during investigations regarding that same relationship. 79.These admissions, in my view, substantially corroborated the Respondent’s assertions in relation to the grounds upon which it terminated the Claimant’s employment. The Claimant did not deny the existence of the relationship or that the complainant was his junior in position. 80.It is now settled that an employer need not prove misconduct beyond reasonable doubt. The applicable threshold is whether the employer genuinely and reasonably believed, based on investigations undertaken, that misconduct had occurred. This principle was affirmed in British American Tobacco (K) Ltd v Kenyan Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers (Kucfaw) [2019] eKLR, which quoted with approval the decision of Anthony Mulaki V Addax Kenya Limited, Cause No. 822 of 2012, where the Court held:-“In examining the validity of reasons, the court was correctly directed by the Respondent to the case of BRITISH HOME STORES LTD v BURCHELL (1980) LC.R. 303 E.A.T., where it was held that for the court to uphold the decision by the employer as being fair, it must be shown that: -a.The employer must believe at the time of termination that the employee is guilty of the allegations against him/herb.The employer had reasonable grounds upon which to sustain that belief; andc.The employer carried out as much investigation as reasonable in the circumstances, the employer need only be satisfied on the balance of probability." 81.Further, this Court has variously held that an employer is entitled to terminate employment where there exists a valid and fair reason connected to the employee’s conduct, compatibility, or the employer’s operational requirements. 82.It is not disputed that the Claimant occupied a senior managerial and directorial role within the service of the Respondent. Parties are also in agreement that the Respondent’s policy expressly prohibited intimate relationships between supervisors and subordinates due to the risk of coercion, abuse of authority, favouritism, and a possible hostile working environment. Such misconduct, in my view, goes to the root of the employment relationship and can destroy trust and confidence. 83.In light of the foregoing, I find and hold that the Respondent has established valid and fair reasons for terminating the Claimant’s employment, hence the termination is found substantively fair. 84.The second limb in determining the fairness of a termination of employment concerns the procedure adopted in the termination. Section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007 requires that, before termination on grounds of misconduct, the employee must be informed of the allegations in a language he understands and in the presence of another employee or shop floor representative, and be afforded an opportunity to make representation before a decision is made. 85.The Respondent expressly admitted that the procedure adopted did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 41. The evidence on record further demonstrates that the Claimant was summoned to Dubai under the guise of discussing operational matters, only to be confronted with a discussion on his misconduct and subsequently issued a pre-prepared termination letter. 86.Further, although the Claimant confirmed that the allegations were verbally mentioned in the meeting, the decision to dismiss him had evidently already been made. It is equally not disputed that the Claimant was not issued with a prior notice to show cause, spelling out the charges against him and notifying him that the Respondent was considering termination of his contract. 87.The Respondent did not also allege having furnished the Claimant with investigation materials, and was admittedly not afforded a disciplinary hearing with representation as contemplated under Section 41. 88.The subsequent meeting in Nairobi on 19th March 2024 cannot, in my view, cure an already concluded dismissal. Once termination had taken effect, any latter invitation for explanations became cosmetic rather than substantive. 89.The Court of Appeal in Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui [2019] KECA 489 (KLR), emphasized that adherence to Section 41 is mandatory and that the section demands a real hearing before termination. Similarly, in Kenfreight (E.A.) In Limited v Benson K. Nguti, [2016] KELR 409 (KLR), the same Court held that procedural fairness is an indispensable requirement even where substantive justification has been satisfied. 90.I have no doubt that the Respondent’s concerns regarding confidentiality and protection of the complainant were legitimate and important, on the premise that employers have both a statutory and constitutional obligation to protect employees from sexual harassment and retaliation. These obligations, however, do not, in my view, extinguish the mandatory procedural guarantees under Section 41. Protective mechanisms such as anonymization, redaction, restricted disclosure, or in-camera disciplinary proceedings could still have been adopted while complying with the fair hearing requirements. 91.In the end, the Court finds and holds that while the termination was substantively justified, it was procedurally unfair and unlawful. Whether the Claimant was subjected to racial discrimination and unfair labour practices 92.The Claimant contends that he was subjected to racial discrimination, asserting that Caucasian, Asian, and white South African employees were treated differently. However, during cross-examination, he expressly admitted that he had not produced evidence of racial discrimination or evidence demonstrating preferential treatment of white employees. 93.Under Sections 5 and 46 of the Employment Act and Article 27 of the Constitution, discrimination must be specifically pleaded and proved through cogent evidence. In GMV v Bank of Africa Kenya Limited [2013] KEELRC 162 (KLR), the Court held that discrimination claims require concrete comparative evidence demonstrating differential treatment based on a prohibited ground. 94.The Claimant led no such evidence, and he admitted as much. The allegations, therefore, remain speculative and of no probative value. 95.The Court therefore finds that the claims for racial discrimination and damages for unfair labour practices are devoid of merit. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought One month's salary in lieu of notice 96.The Claimant admitted receiving three months’ salary in lieu of notice amounting to KES 5,299,500. Having already received more than the contractual entitlement, this prayer fails and is dismissed. Compensation for unfair termination 97.The Court, having found the Claimant’s termination procedurally unfair, entitles him to compensation pursuant to Sections 49 and 50 of the Employment Act, 2007. 98.Taking into account the provisions of Section 49 (4) of the Employment Act, and further considering the Claimant’s senior position at termination, his admission that he breached the company policy, hence contributing to his own termination, and the Respondent having admitted procedural deficiencies, I deem an award of three (3) months’ salary sufficient compensation for the unfair termination. LTIP and STIP claims 99.The evidence before Court shows that bonuses and incentive payments were discretionary and governed by company policy. The Claimant admitted receiving substantial incentives and acknowledged the discretionary nature of the schemes. 100.No evidence was tendered demonstrating accrued unpaid entitlements under the LTIP or STIP. These claims, therefore, fail. Damages for unfair labour practices and racial discrimination 101.This claim was not proved and is therefore dismissed. Certificate of service 102.Under section 51 of the Employment Act, the Claimant is entitled to a certificate of service if not already collected. Release of personal documents 103.The Respondent denied retaining the documents and stated that all personal belongings were returned to the Claimant. The Claimant did not produce evidence proving continued retention of the documents. This claim, therefore, fails. 104.In conclusion, the Claimant’s Claim partly succeeds and orders granted as follows: -a.A declaration is hereby issued that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was procedurally unfair and unlawful.b.An order be and is hereby issued directing the Respondent to pay the Claimant three (3) months’ salary as compensation for the unfair termination of employment.c.The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a certificate of service within 14 days of this Judgment.d.The Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit. 105.Judgment accordingly. SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2026.C. N. BAARIJUDGEAppearance:Ms. Mwaniki h/b for Mr. Omondi for the ClaimantMs. Kivuva h/b for Mr. Mwaki for the RespondentMs. Esther S- C/A