Case Brief: DHL ordered to compensate former Director for unfair dismissal

What employers can learn from the Mutuma Vs DHL court judgement

At DVM Advocates LLP, we keep our clients updated on landmark law decisions emanating from our courts in Kenya. One such case is the recent ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations (Court Mutuma (Claimant) v DHL Worldwide Express Kenya Limited (Respondent) (Cause E1004 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2153 (KLR)) where DHL Worldwide Express Kenya Ltd was ordered to compensate its former Country Director, Andrew Mutuma, over unfair dismissal.

The judgment, was delivered in July 2025, and offers critical lessons for employers on the importance of fair procedure, thorough documentation, and compliance with Kenyan labour when dismissing employees for any reasons.

 Background of the Case

Andrew Mutuma, a former senior director at DHL Kenya, was summarily dismissed following allegations of:

  1. Being involved in the unauthorized changes made to the provisions of the 2018 respondent’s employee handbook relating to retirement scheme, long service award scheme and motor vehicle benefits.
  2. Willful misconduct by being involved in the approval and payment of the 13th month cheque to the respondent’s employees including the claimant contrary to respondent’s group’s policies and procedures and without obtaining the requisite approvals from regional and global levels.
  3. Involvement in unauthorized amendments of the 2019 handbook in July 2020 by introducing provisions on the 13th month cheque without following due process and obtaining the required approvals at the regional and global levels.
  4. Accepting request for early retirement by Kenneth Kaunda, the former Head of Human Resources Kenya, which was outside the claimant’s scope of duties.
  5. Refusing to cooperate in the investigations after being approached by the IRS Forensics Team for information and explanations pertaining to the unauthorized approval and payment of the 13th month cheque and failing to return DHL’s laptop to allow for investigations to be completed timeously.
  6. Failing to protect DHL’s confidential information and documents by forwarding emails outside of the DHL Domain to Mary –Ann Musangi and the claimant’s personal e-mail addresses.
  7. Negligently performing duty by signing letters terminating former employees of the respondent in circumstances where there were repeated failures to follow the correct procedure contrary to the Employment Act and the disciplinary procedure which had led to some employees instituting claims against the respondent for unfair dismissal.

The Respondent in their defense claimed the dismissal was warranted based on misconduct and policy breaches. The Claimant, however, challenged the termination, arguing it was procedurally and substantively unfair.

Court’s Ruling

The Court agreed with the Claimant, holding that:

  1. The dismissal did not follow fair procedure as required under the Employment Act
  2. The respondent failed to provide key documents (e.g. investigation report and evidence) despite the Claimant’s requests
  3. Some allegations were not sufficiently proven or lacked clear attribution to the Claimant
  4. The disciplinary process lacked transparency and independence

Final Orders

  1. Declaration of unfair dismissal
  2. Kshs. 8,889,892.06 awarded as compensation being six months’ gross salary + benefits.
  3. Reinstatement was denied due to the impracticality of returning to the role

Legal Lessons for employers from this case

  1. Need to adhere to fair hearing principles

Section 41 of the Employment Act requires employers to give employees a fair hearing. This includes:

  • Providing proper notice of allegations to the employee
  • Giving access to evidence before the hearing
  • Allowing the employee to respond with or without representation

In this case, failing to provide requested documents and relying on inaccessible “data rooms” undermined DHL’s case.

  • Need to prove the allegations with substantive evidence

Even if misconduct is suspected, the burden of proof lies with the employer thus making unsubstantiated claims irrelevant in the process. Thus, employers must:

  • Keep proper records of approvals, emails, and internal policies incase they are to rely them in process
  • Ensure that responsibility for alleged breaches is clearly linked to the accused staff

In the subject case for example, the Court found some of DHL’s allegations presented to it were not backed by proper evidence.

  • Need to compose a neutral and independent disciplinary panel.

Fair hearing principles provide for a neutral and impartial panel. For example, the investigators should not be the same people making final disciplinary decisions.

  • Company or organisation policies must be clear and applied in a consistent manner.

Company policies, such as employee handbooks or bonuses must be clear and well known to the staff and applied in a consistent manner across all departments.

In this case, DHL’s failure to show consistent enforcement of global approval rules contributed to the court’s finding of unfair dismissal.

  • Reinstatement vs Compensation

Reinstatement of the dismissed staff is not automatic especially for senior-level roles. Courts may instead award compensation if:

  • The working relationship has broken down
  • The position is already filled
  • Trust cannot be restored

This case reaffirms that compensation is the more practical remedy in many dismissal disputes.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice on your specific situation.