Whether the Claimant was unfairly and unlawfully terminated.
11.The court has stated previously that it is not within its realm to over-analyze the reason for which employment has been terminated. The test usually is the reasonable test. That is to say, would a reasonable employer put in the circumstances dismiss”? If the answer be in the affirmative, the court will not interfere.
12.In this case the Respondent did not enter appearance, file response and participate in these proceedings despite service. In addition, the Respondent did not give and inform the Claimant the reason for termination despite the Claimant serving them for 7 years and visiting their offices to inquire the reason for the termination.
13.It is not in dispute that the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent because he has produced the work identity card and Equity Bank statements to illustrate that he was employed by the Respondent.
14.The Claimant was not given any notice, warning for the termination whether verbal or in writing and there was no reason for termination given.
15.On the issue of the reason for termination I am guided by Section 43 which requires the employer to prove the reason for termination; the reason must be valid and fair and if the employer fails prove so the termination shall be deemed unfair under Section 45 of the Act.
16.In the case of Prof. Macha Isunde vs Lavington Security Guards Limited  eKLR, the Court of Appeal stated:
17.In conclusion I find that the dismissal of Claimant’s employment was not substantially justified, there being no valid and fair reason for termination.
18.Regarding procedural fairness, it was held in the cases of Janet Nyandiko versus Kenya Commercial Bank Limited (2017) eklr and Walter Anuro vs Teachers service Commission (2013) eklr that for termination to pass the fairness test, it must be shown that there was not only substantive justification but also procedural fairness.
19.Further I am guided by section 41 of the Employment Act on the procedure for termination.
20.The Claimant submitted that he was never given any notice, no warning either verbally or in writing, no show cause letter was given, no disciplinary hearing was done.
21.The respondent refused and or ignored to take part in these proceedings to rebut the Claimant’s allegations.
22.In conclusion I am of the view that the Claimant’s termination of employment was procedurally flawed hence unfair under section 45 of the Employment Act.
23.The prayer for one-month salary in lieu of Notice is hereby allowed since the reason for the termination of the Claimant employment have been found to be substantially unjustified and procedurally flawed.
24.The prayer for annual not being rebutted is hereby allowed as prayed.
25.On the prayer for compensation for unfair termination of 12 months I take in to account the years the Claimant has worked with the Respondent which was 7 years and the conduct of the Respondent who refused and or ignored to take part in these proceedings and award the compensation for 10 months.
26.The Claimant is entitled to certificate of service as envisaged by Section 51 of the Employment Act if it was not given to him.
27.In conclusion the Claimants’ claim is allowed as illustrated below with costs to the Claimant.a.One Month notice Kshs 15,000/=b.Annual Leave Kshs 60,123.00c.10 months Compensation for unfair and unlawful termination Kshs 150,000/=Total Kshs 225,123/=
28.It is so ordered.