🚨 Court holds that a serious allegation, however troubling, does not excuse an employer from giving a fair hearing before it dismisses their employee. This is Arunda Oludhe Ai versus Bridge International Academies Foundation. Here is what it means. A Grade 1 teacher who had worked at the school since 2013 was suspended and then summarily dismissed after a parent alleged, in a school WhatsApp group, that a child had been punished. The school said its investigations supported the allegation. But the Court found no letter inviting the teacher to a disciplinary hearing, and no adequate evidence that he had been given a meaningful chance to hear and answer the case against him. Justice Hellen Wasilwa held that the disciplinary process was fundamentally flawed. Under sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act, an employer must do two things before terminating, establish a valid reason and follow a fair procedure. Section 41 requires the employer to explain the accusation to the employee and genuinely hear their side before deciding. Section 45 makes a termination unfair where either the reason or the procedure fails. A serious accusation, however troubling, does not excuse an employer from these obligations. One point deserves emphasis. The decision was not a ruling that the alleged conduct was acceptable. It was a finding that the way the dismissal was carried out failed the legal test of fairness. Investigating an allegation and lawfully disciplining an employee are two different things. The Court awarded the teacher KShs 192,302 in notice pay and compensation, with a certificate of service, costs and interest. The legal dispute worth noting: On one side is a school's duty to protect children. When an allegation of harm to a pupil surfaces, a school must act, and there is a strong case for moving quickly and decisively to keep children safe. On the other side is the right to a fair hearing. The gravity of an allegation raises the stakes for the accused, whose career and name are on the line, and that makes due process more important, not less. An investigation that satisfies the employer is not the same as a procedure that is fair to the employee. The deeper point is that these are not true opposites. A school can safeguard children, by suspending while it inquires, and still give the teacher a fair hearing before it dismisses. The law asks for both. Key takeaway: Investigating an allegation and lawfully dismissing over it are two different things. Before termination, sections 41 and 45 require a valid reason and a fair procedure, which means putting the case to the employee and letting them answer, no matter how serious the allegation. Safeguarding and fair process are not alternatives. 👉 Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on fair hearing and lawful termination

🚨 Court holds that the Employment and Labour Relations Court has no power to decide a dispute involving a consultant, even when the company supervised him, sat him in its meetings, and called him an employee in its own email. This is Okaka versus Tulsi Construction Limited (2026), decided by the Employment and Labour Relations Court. Here is what it means. Ammos Okaka was engaged by Tulsi Construction as a Project Manager at KShs 180,000 a month. When payments stopped, he went to the Employment and Labour Relations Court claiming KShs 5.31 million, being 11 months' pay, notice pay, service pay, leave, house allowance and compensation for unfair termination. His case was that, whatever the consultancy label said, the reality made him an employee. He was supervised, attended meetings, submitted reports and was expected to manage the project, and the company had even referred to him as an employee in an email. The Court looked past the argument to the actual contract. Throughout, he was described as a consultant, paid a consultancy fee, required to submit monthly invoices, and engaged for project-management consultancy until the project was completed or earlier terminated. Decisively, he produced no invoice and no evidence establishing an employer and employee relationship. The legal point is a careful one. The law does look at the substance of a relationship, not merely its label, and an employer cannot strip a worker of protection just by writing consultant on the page. But the burden of proving that an employment relationship exists lies on the person asserting it. You cannot simply put the word employee on your pleadings and acquire employment rights. Here the label matched the structure, and the claimant led nothing to displace it. The court held that the claimant was never an employee, so the Employment and Labor relations Court, which hears only employment disputes, had no jurisdiction over what was in truth a contractual claim. The entire cause was dismissed, not on the size of the money, but on the threshold question of who the court can hear. The legal dispute worth sitting with: On one side is substance over form. Day-to-day control, integration into the team and an internal email calling him an employee are real pointers, and courts must be able to see through a label used to disguise a job as a consultancy. On the other side is the bargain the parties actually chose. A person who signs a consultancy agreement, accepts a consultancy fee and is required to invoice has selected a particular legal relationship, and cannot recast it later without evidence. The burden rests on the one claiming to be an employee, and freely chosen commercial arrangements deserve respect. Key takeaway: A label is not conclusive, but neither is a pleading. Whether you are an employee or a consultant is decided by the reality of the relationship, meaning the contract terms, the payment structure, control, invoicing, duties and the evidence, and the person asserting employment must prove it. Understand what your contract creates before you sign, because it can decide which court may even hear you. When a contract calls someone a consultant but the daily work looks like a job, what should decide the case, the written bargain the parties chose, or the reality of how they worked together? 👉 Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on employment and consultancy contracts Want the restructured LinkedIn version, capped at 2500 characters?