https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/157

Owino v Siginon Group Ltd (Cause E574 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 157 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 157 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Mombasa Law Courts Cause E574 of 2025 EM Mwamuye, SRM June 25, 2026 Between Stephen Ndonji Owino Claimant and Siginon Group Limited Respondent Judgment 1.The Claimant commenced these proceedings by a Memorandum of Claim dated 26th August 2025 alleging unlawful and unfair termination of employment and seeking compensation, damages for defamation, terminal dues, costs and interest. 2.The Respondent entered appearance and filed a Response together with witness statements and documentary evidence. Subsequently, the matter was disposed of under Rule 59 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules. The Claimant filed written submissions whereas the Respondent, despite being afforded an opportunity by the Court, did not file written submissions. 3.The Court has considered the pleadings, witness statements, documents filed by both parties and the submissions on record. Issues for Determination 4.The issues arising for determination are:a.Whether the Respondent had a valid and fair reason to terminate the Claimant's employment.b.Whether the Respondent complied with the procedural requirements of the Employment Act.c.Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages for defamation.d.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought. Undisputed Facts 5.The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Logistics Driver on 17th July 2011. He was later retained on permanent and pensionable terms and served until 19th July 2024 when his employment was terminated. At the time of termination, he earned a monthly salary of Kshs.44,418.82/=. 6.The Respondent issued the Claimant with a Notice to Show Cause dated 19th June 2024 alleging that on 15th June 2024 while driving motor vehicle registration number KDB 436A, he deviated from the approved route at Masimba, parked at an unauthorized location and colluded with unknown persons in the illegal sale of client cargo. 7.The Claimant responded to the allegations denying any wrongdoing. A disciplinary hearing was subsequently conducted on 4th July 2024 before the Respondent terminated his employment on 19th July 2024. Whether there was a valid and fair reason for termination 8.Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act place upon an employer the burden of proving the reasons for termination and further proving that such reasons were valid and fair. 9.The Respondent's case was that investigations established that the Claimant deviated from the approved route and participated in an illegal cargo theft syndicate operating at Masimba. 10.The Respondent relied on: GPS route logs; Investigative findings; Photographs; Security reports; A handwritten statement allegedly implicating motor vehicle KDB 436A; Minutes of the disciplinary proceedings. 11.The Claimant on the other hand denied participation in any theft and maintained that: The brief deviation was occasioned by traffic congestion and safety concerns; The cargo was delivered intact; Delivery records, consignment notes and weighbridge records confirmed full delivery. 12.The Court has carefully evaluated the material placed before it. It is notable that no criminal proceedings were instituted against the Claimant arising from the alleged theft. Further, no direct evidence was produced demonstrating that the Claimant personally sold cargo or received proceeds from any alleged sale. 13.However, the standard applicable in employment disputes is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but whether the employer had reasonable and sufficient grounds upon which it genuinely believed misconduct had occurred. 14.The evidence produced by the Respondent showed: The Claimant admittedly left the approved route. The vehicle entered an unauthorized location at Masimba. The stop occurred at a location identified by the Respondent as a cargo theft hotspot. Investigations connected the location to cargo siphoning activities. The Claimant was unable to provide a contemporaneous report to the Fleet Coordinator as required by company policy. The Court is satisfied that the Respondent had material upon which it could reasonably suspect the Claimant of involvement in misconduct and loss of trust. 15.The Court therefore finds that the Respondent established a valid reason within the meaning of Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. Whether the termination was procedurally fair 16.Even where a valid reason exists, the employer must comply with Section 41 of the Employment Act. 17.The record demonstrates that: A detailed Notice to Show Cause was issued on 19th June 2024. The allegations were particularized. The Claimant responded in writing. A disciplinary hearing was convened on 4th July 2024. The Claimant attended the hearing. He was accompanied by a fellow employee. He was afforded an opportunity to defend himself. Minutes of the hearing were signed. 18.The Claimant argued that the disciplinary process was a sham and that the outcome had already been predetermined. The Court has not found evidence supporting that allegation. 19.On the contrary, the documentation demonstrates compliance with the procedural safeguards contemplated under Section 41 of the Employment Act. 20.The Court therefore finds that the Respondent complied with the requirements of procedural fairness. Whether the Claimant proved defamation 21.The Claimant sought general damages for defamation and reputational injury. 22.Defamation is a distinct cause of action requiring proof of:Publication. Falsity. Malice. Injury to reputation. The Claimant pleaded that the allegations were communicated to supervisors, human resource personnel and other staff members. 23.However, disciplinary proceedings are internal employment processes intended to investigate allegations of misconduct. Communications made during such proceedings are generally protected where they are made in good faith and for purposes of carrying out employment obligations. 24.The Claimant did not demonstrate: Publication outside the disciplinary process; Specific defamatory statements made to third parties; Malice on the part of the Respondent; Independent reputational loss attributable to publication. 25.The Court therefore finds that the claim for defamation was not proved on a balance of probabilities and is declined. Entitlement to Reliefs 26.Having found that the Respondent established a valid reason and complied with procedural fairness requirements, the Claimant is not entitled to compensation for unfair termination.a.Declaration of Unfair Termination- Declined.b.Compensation under Section 49- Declined.c.Defamation Damages- Declined.d.Terminal Dues- The Claimant did not specifically plead or prove any outstanding leave days, unpaid salary, gratuity or other quantified dues. The claim under this head fails for want of proof.e.Certificate of Service- Under Section 51 of the Employment Act every employee whose employment terminates is entitled to a Certificate of Service unless exempted by law.f.The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service within thirty (30) days if it has not already done so. Conclusion 27.The Court finds that:i.The Respondent had a valid and fair reason to terminate the Claimant's employment.ii.The Respondent complied with Section 41 of the Employment Act.iii.The Claimant failed to establish a case for defamation.iv.The claim for unfair termination is without merit. Orders 28.Accordingly, Judgment is entered as follows:i.The claim for unlawful and unfair termination is dismissed.ii.The claim for compensation for unfair termination is dismissed.iii.The claim for defamation damages is dismissed.iv.The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service within thirty (30) days if not already issued.v.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