SGA Security Solutions Limited has lost its bid to overturn the Employment and Labour Relations court finding that it unfairly fired a driver accused of reporting to work drunk.
This is after the judge found glaring holes in the employer’s evidence and disciplinary process.
In a decision that reinforces Kenya’s growing body of employment jurisprudence, the court ruled that SGA Security Solutions Limited failed to prove the allegations that led to the dismissal of former driver Benard Gichuru Wanjiru.
The court nevertheless trimmed the employee’s compensation after finding one component of the lower court’s award lacked sufficient legal proof.
The appeal stemmed from a judgement delivered in August 2025, when a magistrate declared Wanjiru’s dismissal unlawful and awarded him KSh490,898.40.
SGA challenged virtually every aspect of that ruling, insisting it had complied fully with the Employment Act before dismissing the employee for gross misconduct.
Yet Justice Ocharo Kebira found the company’s case unravelled under close judicial scrutiny.
Drunk Allegation
At the heart of the dispute was a straightforward but fiercely contested allegation. SGA claimed Wanjiru reported to duty intoxicated on January 5, 2022, while assigned driving duties.
According to the company, he escaped while being transported for a medical examination before disappearing for several days.
It further claimed he later admitted misconduct during disciplinary proceedings and even wrote an apology letter before being summarily dismissed.
Wanjiru painted an entirely different picture.
He denied consuming alcohol altogether.
He insisted he never absconded duty, never resigned, never wrote the alleged apology letter and never attended the disciplinary hearing described by his employer.
Instead, he argued that the dismissal had been predetermined and the disciplinary process manipulated to justify it.
The appellate court found the employer’s version increasingly difficult to sustain.
Justice Kebira observed that although Kenyan law permits employers to summarily dismiss workers found intoxicated during working hours, the accusation cannot rest upon bare allegations.
Such claims require credible and convincing evidence because they directly affect an employee’s livelihood and professional reputation.
That evidence, the judge found, simply was not there.
Who Found Wanjiru Drunk?
Remarkably, the company never identified the person who allegedly found Wanjiru drunk.
Neither that individual nor any witness with first-hand knowledge testified in court.
There was also no medical report, alcohol test or independent evidence confirming intoxication.
Instead, the employer relied largely on documents and testimony from its human resource manager, whose knowledge came only from company records rather than personal involvement.
“The allegation of intoxication… rests on an unattributed assertion,” the judge effectively concluded after reviewing the evidence, finding that suspicion alone could not justify summary dismissal.
The court then uncovered another problem.
Critical company documents contradicted one another on the most basic fact: when the disciplinary hearing actually occurred.
Attendance sheets, disciplinary minutes and an apology letter were all dated January 26, 2022.
Yet the dismissal letter expressly stated the hearing happened on January 27 before terminating Wanjiru’s employment effective January 28. SGA never reconciled those conflicting dates.
That inconsistency became even more significant because Wanjiru consistently maintained no hearing ever occurred on January 26.
Questions also surrounded the documents themselves.
Wanjiru denied authoring both the resignation letter and apology letter attributed to him.
Once he disputed their authenticity, the burden shifted to SGA to prove he had indeed written or signed them.
The company called neither a handwriting expert nor any witness who saw the documents being prepared or executed.
The court consequently declined to attach significant evidential weight to either document.
Procedural fairness also proved fatal to SGA’s appeal.
Although the company initially invited Wanjiru to attend a disciplinary hearing scheduled for January 24, that meeting never took place.
The court found no evidence that he subsequently received fresh written notice informing him the hearing had been rescheduled.
That omission violated Section 41 of the Employment Act, which requires employees facing disciplinary action to receive adequate notice and an opportunity to prepare their defence before termination.
Drawing from established decisions, including Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission and Mary Chemweno Kiptui v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited, the judge reaffirmed that every lawful dismissal must satisfy two independent tests.
Employers must establish both a valid reason for dismissal and a procedurally fair disciplinary process. Failing either requirement renders termination unlawful.
READ ALSO: ‘Too Late’: Family Bank Loses Court Battle Over KSh720,000 Stolen From Customer’s Account
Still, SGA salvaged one important victory.
The court overturned the magistrate’s award of KSh174,218.40 for alleged salary underpayment after finding Wanjiru had failed to identify the specific Wage Order governing his claim.
He also did not establish which months he had allegedly been underpaid or produce the statutory legal framework supporting his calculations.
Without that evidential foundation, the claim could not stand.
Monetary Award
The remaining awards survived appellate scrutiny.
Justice Kebira upheld one month’s salary in lieu of notice, unpaid January salary, house allowance arrears and compensation equivalent to ten months’ salary.
He noted Wanjiru had served continuously for more than seven years before his dismissal and found no basis to interfere with the trial court’s exercise of discretion.
The judgement ultimately reduced the total award from KSh490,898.40 to KSh316,680, together with interest, while directing each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
