https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1528

Tabagon Girls’ Secondary School v Korir (Appeal E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1528 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1528 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret Appeal E001 of 2025 MA Onyango, J May 29, 2026 Between Tabagon Girls’ Secondary School Appellant and Doreen Jepkoech Korir Respondent (Being an appeal against the whole judgment of the Honourable Caroline Rose Tabuche Ateya, Senior Principal Magistrate in Kabarnet MCELRC of E006 of 2024 delivered on 20th December 2024) Judgment 1.The Appellant herein was the Respondent in Kabarnet MCELRC No. E001 of 2025, where the Respondent (then Claimant) sued it via a Memorandum of Claim dated 25th January 2024, seeking compensation and terminal dues for the alleged unfair dismissal of her employment. 2.After hearing the parties, the trial court delivered its judgment on 20th December 2024 in favour of the Claimant awarding her pay in lieu of notice, compensation for unfair termination, January salary, service gratuity and unpaid leave dues. 3.The Appellant being dissatisfied with the said Judgement instituted the instant appeal vide the Memorandum of Appeal dated 20th January 2025 on the following grounds of appeal:a.That the learned magistrate erred in law and solely relying on the respondent's evidence and submissions' and failing to consider the appellant's submissions in arriving at her findings against the appellant.b.That learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in holding that the appellant's termination of the claimant's services was discriminative, malicious, unlawful, unfair and unprocedural without any evidence to that effect.c.That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to give a well- reasoned judgment on each item pleaded and the evidence adduced by the appellant.d.That the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by awarding sums that were excessive and not supported by evidence on record.e.That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in awarding damages that were inordinately too high in the circumstances and failing to appreciate the evidence by the appellant thereby leading to a miscarriage of justice.f.That the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact in using the wrong principles in assessing the costs.g.That the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by finding that the claimant's termination was unfair without properly evaluating the evidence adduced by the respondent.h.That the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider the respondent's evidence that the claimant's termination was due to gross misconduct, negligence. and failure to perform her duties as required under her contract.i.That the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to find that the Appellant' s were not in any way liable for unlawful termination of the claimant's services and therefore ought to have dismissed the Respondent's case against the Appellant with costs.j.That the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by disregarding the respondent's evidence, which demonstrated that the claimant was afforded multiple opportunities to defend herself, including invitations to disciplinary, meetings.k.That the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by awarding unpaid leave dues without sufficient proof from the claimant.l.That the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by awarding the claimant 12 months’ salary as compensation for unfair termination without considering the claimant's conduct and the circumstances leading to her dismissal. 4.The Appellant prays for the following orders:a.That this appeal be allowed and Judgement of the subordinate court be set asideb.That the cost of appeal be borne by the Respondentc.Such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem just and fit. 5.The appeal was disposed of by way of written submissions, with both parties filing their respective submissions. The Appellant’s submissions are dated 27th February 2026 while the Respondent’s submissions are dated 10th February 2026. Analysis 6.This being a first appeal, this court is guided by the principles espoused in several decisions among them, Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd &Another (1968) EA 123, to re-evaluate and re-examine the evidence adduced in the trial court in order to reach its own finding, taking into account the fact that this court had no opportunity of hearing or seeing the parties as they testified. 7.Vide her Memorandum of claim dated 25th January 2024, the Claimant (now the Respondent) sued the Appellant seeking for compensation for unfair dismissal and payment of her terminal dues. 8.The Claimant averred that she was employed by the Appellant as a School Bursar on 2nd February 2014 on a fixed term contract at a salary of Kshs. 25,263 and was entitled to all the statutory benefits. 9.She maintains that she diligently and professional discharged her duties until 10th January 2024 when she was summarily dismissed from employment by the Respondent. 10.The Claimant averred that the reasons for her summary dismissal were premeditated, rushed into and unfair and that further, she was never summoned to any disciplinary meeting. 11.According to the Claimant, her dismissal violated her rights to fair labour practices and fair administrative actions under Article 41 and 47 of the Constitution. 12.The Claimant thus prayed for the following reliefs:a.A declaration that the Claimant suffered unfair and unlawful dismissal by the Respondent.b.General damages for breach of contract, defamation for allegations of unsubstantiated fraud, wrongful and unlawful dismissal.c.Accrued gross salary for the month of January 2024 in absence of notice until determination of this matter as per her current monthly salary.d.Gratuity Severance pay for the 10 years already served under the contract, annual unpaid leave for a period of 10 years, overtime allowance and provision of contract of service.e.Compensation for loss of legitimate expectation from employment the date of summary dismissal until retirement.f.Costs and interest at 14% from the date of judgmentg.Any other relief(s) that this honourable court may deem fit in the circumstances. 13.The Appellant (Respondent in the trial court) filed a Reply to Memorandum of Claim through the Office of the Attorney General dated 29th February 2024 denying that the averments made by the Claimant in her Claim. The Respondent averred that the school management vide a letter dated 10th January 2024 held a meeting on 31st March 2023, BOM Discipline and Welfare subcommittee meeting in 29th July 2023 and a full board meeting on 5th January 2024, it was resolved that the Claimant who worked a school bursar be summarily dismissed from duty and the reasons were clearly communicated to her. 14.The Respondent averred that the Claimant appeared in a full board meeting held on 31st March 2023 and 29th July 2023 where she was given an opportunity for hearing and that during the disciplinary meetings, the Claimant presented an apology letter in response to the allegations levelled against her. 15.The Respondent averred that following a joint conciliation meeting held on 17th January 2024, it was resolved that the Claimant be paid any pending salaries up to the date of dismissal , any leave days earned and not taken, one month in lieu of notice and six months’ pay compensation in respect of termination of employment. That the board agreed and presented the cheque in favour of the Claimant which was delivered to the labour office of Kshs 252,366.17 and a certificate of service. However, the Claimant never returned to collect the said dues. 16.The Respondent averred that due procedure was followed before dismissal of the Claimant’s employment and that she was afforded a fair and just hearing before her termination and that her termination was valid and in accordance with section 41,43 and 45 of the Employment Act. 17.The matter thereafter proceeded to hearing on various dates. At the trial, the Claimant testified as CW1 and adopted her witness statement dated 25th January 2024 as part of her evidence-in-chief. She told the trial court that she was served with a letter of dismissal by the Respondent on allegations which, according to her, were false. She denied signing the cheques alleged in the dismissal letter and averred that her role was limited to writing the cheques, which were thereafter signed by the principal and members of the Board. 18.The Claimant further testified that she was not involved in the supply of school uniforms and maintained that the uniforms were supplied by the principal, while her role was merely to collect funds from parents and remit the same to the principal. 19.In response to the allegations made by the Respondent that she proceeded on leave without permission, the Claimant stated that she applied for leave and submitted the leave form to the principal’s office. She averred that the principal subsequently called the secretary and directed that the leave form be approved, whereupon she proceeded on leave. 20.On the issue of the books of accounts, the Claimant testified that she prepared the same while she still had access rights to the system. She stated that she was thereafter locked out of the system and that access was subsequently granted to the accounts clerk. 21.On the allegations that she had misappropriated students’ pocket money, the Claimant testified that she would withdraw monies received through M-Pesa and disburse the same accordingly. She stated that she was ambushed on a Saturday and directed to surrender the money then in her possession, whereupon she handed over the cash she had at the time. She averred that she thereafter withdrew the balance and surrendered the same. It was the Claimant’s contention that she never received any letter concerning the students’ pocket money or uniforms. 22.The Claimant maintained that her dismissal was irregular. She stated that she was not paid leave allowance despite having worked for the Respondent for ten years. She also averred that she was not paid gratuity for the ten years she served the Respondent. 23.It was the Claimant’s case that upon receiving the dismissal letter, she reported the matter to the Labour Office, following which two meetings were held with representatives of the school. She testified that during the first meeting, she was informed that her benefits would be paid and that the dismissal would be revoked. However, she later received a message indicating that another meeting would be convened. The Claimant further testified that the Principal subsequently sent her a message informing her that a cheque was ready for collection, but she declined to collect the same as she was not agreeable to the terms of the proposed settlement. 24.On cross-examination, the Claimant denied procuring beans beyond the approved capacity as alleged in the dismissal letter and stated that one Nehemiah Toroitich was the supplier of beans after being awarded the tender in 2019. The Claimant testified that it was not part of her duties to prepare invoices and that invoices were ordinarily prepared by suppliers. She averred that her role was to write cheques after invoices had been presented. She admitted that she prepared one cheque in line with an invoice that had been presented to her. 25.The Claimant also testified that she wrote the apology letter after being given a draft to copy. She stated that she had been forced to write the same. She maintained that she had never received any warning letters from the school and that she only came to learn of the alleged warning letters in the Respondent’s bundle of documents during the conciliation meeting at the Labour Office. 26.The Claimant maintained that she never received any notice to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against her and that she was never invited to any Board meeting. She further testified that although the minutes indicated that she had been present during the meeting of 29th July 2023, she had only been called in the evening after the meeting and informed of the deliberations that had already been made. 27.On re-examination, the Claimant testified that she merely used invoices presented to her to prepare cheques and that the same would thereafter be verified by the Principal. She further testified that the Principal called her before the Heads of Departments and convinced her to write the apology letter. According to her, the wording and handwriting in the draft originated from the Principal. 28.The Claimant testified that no student ever complained of not receiving pocket money and that she had never seen any report relating to the alleged loss of funds. 29.The Respondent called two witnesses in support of its case. Albina Rotich, the Respondent’s former Principal, testified as RW1 and adopted her witness statement dated 19th March 2024 as her evidence in chief. The Respondent’s witness stated that the Claimant’s dismissal was neither unfair nor predetermined. She testified that she took over the administration of the school in May 2023 and found that the disciplinary issues relating to the Claimant had commenced in 2018, under her predecessor, before the matter was handed over to her. 30.RW1 testified that the Claimant was dismissed from employment on grounds of misappropriation of money relating to school uniforms and other financial irregularities. She further testified that there was also an issue concerning the supply of beans where the school had ordered 905 kilograms of beans, and the Claimant allegedly inflated the figure to 2,905 kilograms and consequently caused an excess amount to be included beyond what the school owed the supplier. 31.RW1 further testified that the Claimant proceeded on leave without permission between 2nd December 2019 and 3rd January 2020 and again between 28th November 2022 and 11th January 2023. RW1 additionally testified that in July 2023, when the Claimant was required to hand over students’ pocket money amounting to Kshs. 105,000, she only surrendered Kshs. 40,000. 32.It was RW1’s testimony that the Claimant had been issued with several warning letters since 2018 and that she was invited during Board meetings held in March 2023 and July 2023 to explain herself regarding the allegations levelled against her. RW1 further testified that the Claimant had earlier written a letter apologising over the said allegations. 33.She stated that the Claimant had no salary arrears at the time of dismissal and that she was issued with a certificate of service. 34.On cross-examination, RW1 testified that she was not the Principal of the school in 2018, 2019 or 2021 and that the issue which ultimately led to the dismissal in 2023 was in relation to students’ pocket money. She stated that the issue had been reported to her, though she did not have any record of any student who had complained of not receiving pocket money. 35.RW1 further testified that Board meetings and disciplinary proceedings were distinct processes and averred that the Claimant was not a member of the Board. 36.RW1 testified that she took over from one Jane Sambu, who was still at the school up to May 2023. She referred to the school stamp bearing the name of Jane Sambu and testified that although the minutes were dated 13th July 2023, the date appearing thereon was erroneous. According to RW1, the minutes relating to the March 2023 Board meeting were signed in July 2023 after the subsequent Board meeting and the signature date was therefore an error. 37.On re-examination, RW1 reiterated that the Claimant was not a member of the Board but had been invited to appear before it to respond to the allegations levelled against her. She testified that she was personally present during the Board meeting held on 29th July 2023 and that the Claimant attended the same. 38.RW1 further testified that the issue of fraud was never reported to the police. She stated that the school had internal committees before which the Claimant was required to appear and answer the allegations raised against her. 39.RW2, Reverend Rebecca Koskey, introduced herself as the County Labour Officer, Baringo County. She testified that she initiated and conducted the conciliation meetings between the Claimant and the Respondent and that during the conciliation meetings, the Claimant admitted to three mistakes 40.Upon hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial court delivered its judgment on 20th December 2024 and found that the dismissal of the Claimant from employment was unfair. Consequently, the trial court awarded the Claimant Kshs. 25,263 being pay in lieu of notice, Kshs. 303,156 being compensation equivalent to twelve months’ salary for unfair termination, Kshs. 8,421 being salary arrears for January, service gratuity in the sum of Kshs. 126,315 and unpaid leave dues amounting to Kshs. 176,841. 41.It is the said judgment that is the subject of this appeal. The Appellant’s submission 42.In its submissions, the Appellant crystallized the grounds of appeal into the following issues:i.Whether the trial court erred in law in finding that the Respondent’s termination was unfairii.Whether the trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence on recordiii.Whether the trial court erred in awarding remedies under section 49 of the Employment Activ.Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to find that the Respondent was paid all dues receipt whereof she acknowledged. 43.On the first issue, the Appellant submitted that the Respondent expressly admitted misconduct in her apology letter dated 1st March 2023. According to the Appellant, the Respondent admitted to attempted fraudulent procurement of beans in 2018, misappropriation of school funds, failure to prepare and submit books of accounts and negligence in financial reporting. 44.Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Judicial Service Commission v Gladys Boss Shollei(2020)eKLR, the Appellant submitted that the said admissions amounted to gross misconduct within the meaning of section 44(4)(c) and (g) of the Employment Act and therefore constituted a valid and lawful basis for summary dismissal. 45.On the second issue, the Appellant submitted that the learned trial magistrate anchored the finding of unfair termination solely on alleged procedural impropriety under section 41 of the Employment Act. It was submitted that the law is settled that fairness of termination must be assessed from the twin requirements of substantive justification and procedural fairness. In support of this position, reliance was placed on the decisions in Kenfreight (EA) Limited v Benson K. Nguti [2016] eKLR and CMC Aviation Limited v Mohammed Noor(2015) eKLR. 46.The Appellant submitted that it had reasonable and sufficient grounds to believe that the Respondent had committed financial misconduct based on audit queries raised against her, warning letters allegedly issued to her since 2018, failure to prepare statutory financial documents and the Respondent’s own admission of wrongdoing. 47.It was therefore submitted that the trial court erred in disregarding substantive justification and elevating procedural considerations above all else. 48.The Appellant further submitted that the evidence on record demonstrated that the Respondent reported the dispute to the County Labour Office following which a conciliation meeting was held on 17th January 2024. According to the Appellant, during the conciliation process, the Respondent acknowledged her mistakes, accepted settlement in the sum of Kshs. 252,366= and agreed to be issued with a certificate of service. The Appellant therefore maintained that no evidence of coercion was presented before the trial court. 49.On the issue whether the trial court erred in awarding remedies under section 49 of the Employment Act, the Appellant submitted that even assuming, that the termination was procedurally unfair, the learned trial magistrate nevertheless erred in awarding the Respondent the maximum compensation equivalent to twelve months’ salary. 50.The Appellant submitted that section 49(4) of the Employment Act obligates the court to take into account, inter alia, the employee’s conduct, the extent to which the employee contributed to the termination, previous warnings issued to the employee and compliance with statutory obligations. In this regard, the Appellant submitted that the Respondent’s admitted misconduct and contributory conduct were material considerations which the trial court failed to take into account in awarding remedies. Reliance was placed in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Kenya Ports Authority v Festus Kipkorir Kiprotich [2014] eKLR. 51.The Appellant thus contended that the award of twelve months’ salary as compensation, ten years’ leave pay and service gratuity, without taking into account the Respondent’s contributory fault, was erroneous in law. 52.In the end, the Appellant submitted that the appeal raised weighty issues warranting interference by this Court, contending that the learned trial magistrate failed to consider material evidence on record, ignored the Respondent’s admissions of misconduct, misapplied sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act and proceeded to award excessive remedies contrary to section 49(4) of the Employment Act. 53.The Appellant thus urged the court to set aside the entire judgment of the trial court and allow the appeal with costs. The Respondent’s submissions 54.On her part, the Respondent, while relying on section 41 of the Employment Act and the Court of Appeal decision in Kenfreight (E.A.) Limited v Benson K. Nguti [2016] eKLR, submitted that the evidence tendered before the trial court clearly established that she was not subjected to a disciplinary process compliant with the mandatory requirements of section 41 of the Employment Act. According to the Respondent, the finding by the trial court that the termination was procedurally unfair was therefore legally sound and properly grounded in law. 55.On the issue whether the Appellant complied with the requirements of substantive fairness under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act in summarily dismissing the Respondent, the Respondent relied on the decision in Kenya Revenue Authority v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi & 2 others [2019] eKLR and submitted that the Appellant failed to discharge the statutory burden imposed under section 43 of the Employment Act. The Respondent maintained that the trial court properly found that the termination was unfair for want of valid and proved reasons. 56.On the issue whether the award of twelve months’ compensation was excessive, the Respondent, while citing the decision in Ol Pejeta Ranching Limited v David Wanjau Muhoro [2017] eKLR, submitted that assessment of compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act is a discretionary exercise and that an appellate court ought not to interfere with the same unless it is demonstrated that the trial court acted on wrong principles or misdirected itself in law. 57.The Respondent submitted that in assessing compensation, the trial court duly considered the Respondent’s ten years of service, the lack of due process, the absence of proved misconduct and the economic prejudice suffered as a result of the dismissal. According to the Respondent, the award fell within the statutory limits prescribed under the Employment Act and constituted a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The Respondent therefore maintained that the award could not be said to have been excessive. 58.On the award of service pay, leave pay and salary for days worked, the Respondent relied on section 10(7) of the Employment Act and submitted that the Appellant failed to produce leave records or proof of payment of the said dues. The Respondent submitted that the trial court properly awarded service pay and accrued leave on the basis of the evidence placed before it. 59.The Respondent further submitted that the Memorandum of Appeal dated 20th January 2025 failed to demonstrate any misapprehension of the evidence, misapplication of statutory provisions, excess of jurisdiction or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court. 60.Consequently, the Respondent submitted that the learned trial magistrate properly applied sections 41, 43, 45 and 49 of the Employment Act in arriving at the impugned decision. The Respondent urged this Court to dismiss the appeal with costs. Determination 61.I have considered the Appellant’s Record of Appeal and the submissions by both parties. The grounds of appeal may be summarized into the following issues for determination:i.Whether the Respondent’s summary dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair within the meaning of sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.ii.Whether the remedies awarded by the trial court were proper in the circumstances. Whether the Respondent’s summary dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair within the meaning of sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. 62.For a termination of employment to pass the fairness test under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, an employer must establish both substantive justification and procedural fairness. In Kenfreight (E.A.) Limited v Benson K. Nguti [2016] eKLR, the Court of Appeal emphasized that the twin requirements of substantive and procedural fairness must both be satisfied before termination can be said to be lawful. 63.On substantive justification, from the summary dismissal letter dated 10th January 2024 at page 16 of the Record of Appeal, the Respondent was dismissed on account of alleged attempted fraud involving procurement of beans, irregularities in the supply of school uniforms, proceeding on leave without approval, failure to prepare and submit books of accounts and shortage of students’ pocket money during handover. The Appellant maintained that the said acts amounted to gross misconduct warranting summary dismissal under section 44 of the Employment Act. 64.The Respondent, however, denied the allegations and maintained that her role was limited to preparation of cheques after invoices had already been generated and verified by the Principal. She further denied inflating procurement figures and maintained that she merely processed documentation presented to her in the ordinary course of duty. The Respondent also testified that the apology letter relied upon by the Appellant was written after she was coerced to write the same. 65.It is evident from page 37 of the Record of Appeal that the Respondent admitted and apologized for all the grounds itemized in the letter of dismissal. She admitted during the hearing under cross examination at page 73 of the Record of Appeal that she wrote the letter of apology albeit that she copied the contents from a draft that she was given. It is also evident that she was taken through a disciplinary hearing by the Respondent’s Discipline and Welfare Committee meeting held on 29th July, 2023. (See page 40 of Record of Appeal). The minutes clearly show that she was in attendance and Agenda No. 3 of the meeting was “Issue of Doreen Korir (Bursar) way forward.” Minute 03072023 is reproduced below:MINUTES FOR THE B.O.M DISCIPLINE AND WELFARE SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 29TH JULY 2023 IN THE PRINCIPAL’S OFFICE AT 11.50 AM .Members present1.Mr.Jonah Tuikong Chairperson2.Mrs.Albina Chesire Secretary3.Rev.John Cheptai Member4.Ms.Monica Cheboi Member5.Mr.Kipkemoi Toromo BOM ChairmanIn attendanceMs. Doreen KorirAgenda1.Preliminaries2.Reading and Confirmation of the previous minutes3.Issue of Doreen Korir (Bursar) way forward4.AdjournmentMin.01072023.PreliminariesThe meeting was called to order at 3.00 pm with a word of prayer from Rev. John Cheptai. The chair welcomed members to the meeting and thanked members for turning up for the meeting despite the fact that it was a weekend.Min.02072023. Reading and Confirmation of previous minutesThe secretary went through the previous minutes dated 13th July 2023. It was proposed and seconded by Ms. Monica Cheboi and Rev. John Cheptai as true recordings of the previous meeting.Min.03072023.The issue of the school bursar (Doreen Korir) and way forwardThis was an issue which was a follow up from the previous meeting. The issue is as follows:-i.Neglected her duties from 2019-2022 (writing of trial balances and budget)ii.She proceeded on leave on two occasions without permission (02122019-03-01-2020,28112022-11012023)iii.She was involved in fraudulent payment of money in the school:- Colluded with the supplier of beans to pay more than supplied(cheque) Misappropriation of form one uniform money kshs. 230,000 and kshs.28,000 respectively.in 2019 Way forwardShe was invited to appear before the BOM Disciplinary committee to be given a hearing on the accusations leveled against her which she did and was disrespectful to the panel and did not show any remorsefulness. She accused the former principal for victimizing her but she admitted that the allegations were true and confirmed that she is the author of the apology letter in the file.ConclusionAfter close scrutiny on the allegations on the file, the members unanimously agreed that Doreen cannot be trusted anymore to hold the office of the bursar. Even if she could be proposed to be deployed to another office, members could not trust her.After lengthy discussion on the same she was persuaded to take an option of applying for early retirement to enable her be given some benefits due to humanitarian grounds but she adamantly refused. As a result, it was unanimously agreed that the law should take its course. She was given three days off from the date of this letter 29th July 2023 to 1st August 2023 to go and think and give the principal a report whether or not she would change her mind on the above.She was directed to handover any money that she had from her office to the Accounts clerk and hand over the key to her office to the principal. Upon handing over the pocket money for students, she handed over less by Kshs. 46,005 the total of which was to be Kshs. 105,250. When she was asked to explain the shortage, she only responded that she will bring the money by Tuesday 1st August 2023.After all these discussions and reports, the members directed the principal to consult with the Labour officer in order to give a way forward simply because the bursar was not remorseful at all.Min.04072023.Adjournment There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 7.30 PM with a closing prayer from Ms. Monica Cheboi.Minutes confirmed by;Chairperson: Kipkemoi Toromo date: 8-8-23Secretary: A. Chesire (Mrs) date: 8-8-23 66.There is no obligation for an employer to report fraudulent activities of employees to the police and failure to do so would not constitute a breach of the disciplinary process or innocence of the employee. All that the law requires of the employer is to give the employee a hearing in the manner set out in section 41 of the Act. 67.From the evidence on record I find that there was valid and fair reason for termination of the Respondent’s employment. There is further evidence of substantial compliance with procedural fairness as demonstrated by the minutes of the disciplinary hearing. 68.Consequently, this Court finds that there was no basis for the finding by the trial court that the Respondent’s termination was procedurally unfair. Whether the trial court erred in the award of remedies. 69.As mentioned, the trial court awarded the Respondent Kshs. 25,263 being pay in lieu of notice, Kshs. 303,156 being compensation equivalent to twelve months’ salary for unfair termination, Kshs. 8,421 being salary arrears for January, service gratuity in the sum of Kshs. 126,315 and unpaid leave dues amounting to Kshs. 176,841. 70.On the award of pay in lieu of notice, having found the termination lawful and fair, the Respondent was not entitled to notice or payment in lieu of notice. The award of Kshs. 25,263 being one month salary in lieu of notice is accordingly set aside. 71.With regard to the award of compensation equivalent to twelve months’ salary for unfair termination, under section 49(4) of the Employment Act, the same is not merited, the Respondent having not been terminated unfairly. I accordingly set aside the award. 72.On the award of salary arrears for January 2024, the Respondent testified that she was dismissed on 10th January 2024 and there was no evidence placed before the trial court demonstrating that she had been paid her salary for the days worked. Consequently, this Court finds the award of Kshs. 8,421 being salary arrears for January 2024 to be merited. 73.On the award of service gratuity, I have perused the appointment letter dated 2nd February 2014 at page 15 of the Record of Appeal and noted that the same did not contain any provision for payment of gratuity upon termination of employment. Further, no evidence was placed before the trial court demonstrating the existence of any contractual term or collective bargaining agreement entitling the Respondent to gratuity. Consequently, the award of service gratuity lacked a foundation and was not merited. 74.With regard to accrued leave, the Respondent maintained that she was never granted annual leave and was therefore entitled to payment in lieu thereof. However, the evidence on record reveals that one of the allegations levelled against the Respondent was that she had proceeded on leave without permission on various occasions. The Respondent in her testimony admitted that she proceeded on leave after submitting leave forms to the principal’s office. In the view of this Court, both parties acknowledged that the Respondent had taken leave during the course of employment. In the absence of specific evidence demonstrating accrued and untaken leave days, the award for leave dues for the entire period claimed was not supported by the evidence on record. 75.I however note that during conciliation the Appellant agreed pay the Respondent the sum of Kshs. 252,466.17 made up as follows as per letter addressed to county Labour Officer by the Appellant:i)1 month in leu of notice Kshs. 25,263.ii)Unpaid salary (10 days) Kshs 7,463iii)Leave days2023 - 21 days2022-2021 - 21 daysKshs.31,344.60v)CompensationSix months salary Kshs.151,578v)Ex gratia kshs.50,000vi)Certificate of serviceThe total amount of money is kshs.215,648.60 plus ex gratia of Ksh. 50,000Total =Kshs.265,648.60 minus 5% KRA tax Ksh.13,282.43 Grand total terminal dues for Doreen J. Korir is Kshs.252,466.17. 76.Having reached the findings above, the entire award of the trial court is set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs. 252,466.17, noting that the Appellant agreed to pay the same during conciliation and issued a cheque to that effect to the County Labour Officer, the Conciliator, which the Respondent failed to collect. 77.Each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal. 78.Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 2026M. ONYANGOJUDGE