Automated Summary
Key Facts
The claimant, Caroline Cheptoo, was employed as a clerk at Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited for 23 years. She was summarily dismissed in February 2020 after an internal audit alleged she received Ksh. 28,470 from private electricians (Edlam O, J Fumba, K. Muthui, and Salim Mpate). The court found the dismissal procedurally unfair, citing insufficient evidence, lack of detailed transaction records, and failure to provide the claimant with material evidence during the disciplinary hearing. Compensation of six months' salary (Ksh. 516,073.68) and notice pay (Ksh. 86,012.28) was awarded.
Issues
- The court assessed if the respondent provided the claimant with sufficient notice, evidence, and opportunity to respond during the disciplinary process. It found that critical evidence like M-Pesa transaction details was withheld, violating the employee's right to a fair hearing.
- The court determined that the audit report lacked specific details connecting the claimant to the Ksh. 28,470 received from private electricians. The evidence was deemed insufficient to establish culpability for the alleged revenue irregularities.
- The court ruled the termination unfair, citing the claimant's 23-year clean service record and the lack of due process. It emphasized that withholding evidence and assigning blame without proof violated constitutional protections for fair employment practices.
- The court examined whether Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited's summary dismissal of Caroline Bomett Cheptoo for alleged involvement in revenue fraud was legally justified. Key factors included the adequacy of evidence, procedural fairness, and compliance with the Employment Act's requirements for disciplinary actions.
Holdings
- The court declared that the claimant's employment was terminated unfairly.
- The claimant was awarded six months' gross salary as compensation for unfair dismissal, amounting to Ksh. 516,073.68.
- Each party was ordered to bear their own costs in the case.
- The claimant received notice pay of Ksh. 86,012.28 due to unfair summary dismissal.
Remedies
- Notice pay of Ksh 86,012.28 was awarded to the claimant.
- The court ordered that each party shall bear their own costs related to the case.
- The court declared that the claimant's employment was terminated unfairly.
- The claimant was awarded compensation amounting to Ksh 516,073.68 for the unfair dismissal.
Monetary Damages
602085.96
Legal Principles
- The court emphasized procedural fairness under section 41(1) of the Employment Act, requiring employers to (i) explain termination grounds in understandable language, (ii) provide reasons for termination, (iii) allow employee representation, and (iv) hear employee representations. This was highlighted in Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v Aggrey Lukorito Wasike [2017] eKLR.
- The court applied the standard of proof on a balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt for employment termination cases, as established in Bamburi Cement Limited v William Kilonzi [2016] eKLR and CFC Stanbic Bank Limited v Danson Mwashako Mwakuwona [2015] eKLR. This standard requires employers to prove their 'genuine belief' in misconduct, not absolute certainty.
- The court ruled the termination constituted an 'unfair labour practice' under Article 41 of the Constitution, which protects the right to work as a fundamental human right linked to dignity and life. This principle was reinforced in Kenya Ports Authority v Munyao & 4 others [2023] KESC 112 (KLR), emphasizing constitutional obligations in labor relations.
Precedent Name
- Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited v Yator
- Kenya Ports Authority v Munyao & 4 others
- Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v Aggrey Lukorito Wasike
- Kenya Revenue Authority v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi & 2 others
- Pathfinder International Kenya Limited v Stephen Ndegwa Mwangi
Cited Statute
Employment Act
Judge Name
M. Mbaru
Passage Text
- 33. The charge of rebilling and an unprocedural meter change assigned to the claimant was without proof. There is no link to the allegations that she received Ksh. 28,470 from private electricians. This was an amorphous term.
- 30. No evidence is presented to support these allegations, and the details regarding access to the M-Pesa transactions leading to the claims are not provided. The audit process seeking to establish the revenue loss of Ksh.41 million ended up being perfunctory, and the claimant was assigned a loss of Ksh.28,470.
- 43. Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered for the claimant against the respondent in the following terms: a. A declaration that employment was terminated unfairly, b. Compensation Ksh. 516,073.68, c. Notice pay Ksh. 86,012.28,