SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Charles Aput Otieno v Telkom Kenya Limited [2017] KECA 696 (KLR)

[2017] KECA 696 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
696
Citation
[2017] KECA 696 (KLR)
Decided
10 March 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the Award and Decree of the Industrial Court of KenyaCoramD. K. MUSINGA, S. GATEMBU KAIRU, A. K. MURGOR
Holding

The court held that the respondent had reasonable and sufficient grounds for suspecting that the appellant had committed an offence to its substantial detriment and therefore had justifiable grounds for terminating his employment. The procedure in terminating the employment was found to be in conformity to the minimum standards.

Facts

The appellant, Charles Aput Otieno, was employed by Kenya Posts and Telecommunications Corporation and later promoted to the position of Sectional Engineer. He was dismissed on 8th June 2010 for allegedly involving in illegal dumping of international traffic and leaking information during investigations.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial court was right to conclude that there were valid reasons for terminating the appellant's employment.
  2. Whether the decision to terminate the appellant's employment was arrived at following a fair procedure.

Reasoning

The court found that there was evidence of illegal international traffic being dumped into the respondent's network, and the appellant was one of the suspects mentioned in the investigation report. The court also noted that the appellant acknowledged the loss of revenue due to the dumping of international traffic.

Outcome

Affirmed the decision of the Industrial Court.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case