Facts
Soita Wasike began working for the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC) in 2005. In 2013, the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), which took over from KACC under Kenya’s new constitution, terminated his employment. The EACC was legally required to vet all KACC employees to determine who could continue working for the new organization. Soita challenged his termination in court, arguing it was unfair. The Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) ruled on October 12, 2018, that his termination was wrongful and awarded him compensation equal to 12 months’ salary. The EACC appealed to the Court of Appeal, contesting both the finding of unfair termination and the amount of compensation awarded.
Issues
The Court of Appeal faced two key questions. First, was Soita’s termination by the EACC lawful, given his claim that the EACC lacked the proper authority to fire him? Second, if the termination was unfair, was the ELRC’s award of 12 months’ salary as compensation appropriate, or should a different amount be granted?
Ruling
The Court of Appeal agreed with the ELRC that Soita’s termination was unfair but reduced the compensation from 12 months’ salary to one month’s salary. The court found that the EACC was not properly constituted at the time of Soita’s termination because it lacked the required number of commissioners to make legal decisions. Without a valid commission, the vetting process and Soita’s termination were unlawful. On the compensation issue, the court determined that one month’s salary was sufficient to address the harm caused by the unfair termination, especially since Soita had already received one month’s salary in lieu of notice, service gratuity, and payment for unused leave.
Application
To decide the case, the Court of Appeal looked to previous rulings with similar circumstances. For the first issue, the court cited its own decision in Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v. Henry Murithi Mwithia (2024) and a 2018 case. These rulings established that the EACC needed at least three commissioners to function legally. At the time of Soita’s termination, the EACC had only two commissioners, rendering its actions invalid. As a result, the court upheld that the termination was unlawful.
For the second issue, the court reviewed the compensation awarded. Soita’s contract allowed termination with one month’s notice or equivalent payment, which he received, along with gratuity and leave payments. Referencing the Mwithia case and other precedents, the court noted that additional compensation beyond the contract terms is only justified if the employer acted with malice, which was not shown here. Since the ELRC did not justify the 12-month award, the Court of Appeal concluded that one month’s salary was fair compensation for the unfair termination.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal partially granted the EACC’s appeal. It confirmed that Soita’s termination was unfair due to the EACC’s lack of proper authority. However, it lowered the compensation to one month’s salary, finding it sufficient given the payments Soita had already received. Delivered on July 4, 2025, this ruling emphasizes the importance of legal authority in employment decisions and reasonable compensation.
Leave a Reply