JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
At the time of his dismissal in 2007, the respondent was employed by the appellant at its Kisumu branch as a Mechanical Superintendent Grade HM3. He had served the appellant for 19 years and expected, all things remaining constant, to retire at the age of 55 years in 13 years from the date of dismissal. That did not happen because in March, 2006 he was accused together with a colleague, of making fraudulent payments of Kshs.194,880 for goods that were never supplied. He was initially summarily dismissed. He challenged that decision by lodging an appeal with the appellant, while at the same time he instituted an action in the High Court. We suspect that these two events led the appellant to review its position in so far as its initial decision to summarily dismiss the respondent was concerned. It lifted and substituted it with an interdiction. In the letter conveying this latest decision the respondent was also directed to show cause, within 48 hours upon receipt o…