[2025] KEELRC 2073 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent failed to substantiate the allegations of theft against the claimant, as no evidence or police report was produced. The claimant's testimony regarding unfair termination remained uncontroverted due to the respondent's failure to present evidence at the hearing. The court held that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 2073 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Reuben Ondele Alwang’A; Respondent: Cedar Springs Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1600 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim allowed in part; claimant awarded compensation and terminal dues.
- Judges
- HS Wasilwa
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Summary Dismissal, Oral Contracts, Underpayment of Wages, House Allowance, Compensation for Dismissal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Reuben Ondele Alwang’A
Applicant
Cedar Springs Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant was unfairly terminated from employment by the respondent.
- 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal and other terminal dues.
- 3 Whether the respondent complied with statutory requirements under the Employment Act during termination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent failed to substantiate the allegations of theft against the claimant, as no evidence or police report was produced. The claimant's testimony regarding unfair termination remained uncontroverted due to the respondent's failure to present evidence at the hearing. The court held that the termination did not comply with the mandatory procedures under the Employment Act, specifically Sections 41 and 45, which require valid reason and due process before dismissal. The claimant was therefore entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal, salary in lieu of notice, underpayment, and house allowance. The court also noted that some claims were time-barred but...
Court Disposition
Claim allowed in part; claimant awarded compensation and terminal dues.
Orders
- Respondent to pay claimant one month salary in lieu of notice (Kshs 9,500).
- Respondent to pay claimant eight months salary as compensation for unfair termination (Kshs 76,000).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
Alwang’a v Cedar Springs Limited (Cause 1600 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 2073 (KLR) (10 July 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 2073 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause 1600 of 2016
HS Wasilwa, J
July 10, 2025
Between
Reuben Ondele Alwang’A
Claimant
and
Cedar Springs Limited
Respondent
Judgment
1. The Claimant instituted this claim vide a Memorandum of Claim dated 10th August 2016 and prays for judgment against the Respondents for: -i.One month’s salary in lieu of notice.ii.Unpaid salary from March – August 2016. iii.Underpayment of basic pay (from 2nd February- 3rd March).iv.House allowance.v.Compensation for unfair dismissal.vi.Annual leave pay.vii.General damages.viii.Order for Respondent to issue appointment letter.ix.Order for Respondent to issue certificate of service to Claimant.x.Costs and interest.xi.Any other remedies that this honourable court may deem just and expedient to grant.
Claimant’s Case 2. The Claimant avers that he was employed by the Respondent as a gardener on 2nd February 2012 until the Respondent wrongfully and unlawfully terminated his services on 3rd March 2016. The termination was communicated verbally and without the statutory minimum notice.
3. The Claimant avers that his employment was based on an oral contract of service between the parties and his monthly salary was Kshs. 9,500, particulars are highlighted by cheque deposits at Equity Bank Limited where he operates his account by the Respondent.
4. The Claimant avers that he was not issued with an appointment letter as required by law during the subsistence of his employment, however, he served the Respondent with loyalty and diligently.
5. It is the Claimant’s case that during his service to the Respondent, he was underpaid, not granted house allowance and he contends that the Respondent should pay the balances of the underpayment.
Respondent’s Case 6. In opposition to the Claim, the Respondent filed a Statement of Defence dated 22nd January 2024.
7. The Respondent admitted that the Claimant was its employee but it avers that the Claimant was not a diligent and loyal employee as he was fired for cause when he was caught stealing gardening tools and a wheelbarrow.
8. The Respondent avers that the issue of unfair termination does not arise as the Claimant was summarily dismissed due to his untoward conduct of theft.
9. It is the Respondent’s case that it bargained with the Claimant to quit work in exchange of criminal charges not being levied against him.
10. The Respondents avers that the Claim before this court is frivolous and abuse of the court process and should therefore be dismissed with costs.
Evidence in Court 11. The Claimant (CW1) adopted his witness statement dated 10th August 2016 as his evidence in chief and produced his filed list of documents as his exhibits.
Claimant’s Submissions 12. The Claimant submitted that the Respondent did not substantiate the theft claims; there was no OB extract to show that the matter was reported to the police. Further, there was no single correspondence to show that the allegations by the Respondent indeed took place.
13. The Claimant submitted that it is trite law that he who alleges must prove. Section 107(1) of the Evidence Act provides that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.
14. The Claimant submitted that he has proved that he was unfairly terminated thus he should be adequately compensated and be awarded what is due to him as by the law.
15. The Claimant submitted that the termination was not in compliance with the procedure set out under Section 41 and 45(5)(a) of the Employment Act. The termination was unfair within the meaning of Section 45 of the Act.
16. The Claimant submitted that there is no iota of evidence of compliance of the guidelines under the Employment Act by the Respondent and hence the Claimant’s claim should succeed.
17. This claim proceeded ex-parte when the respondent though served failed to present any evidence during the time scheduled for hearing.
18. The claimant testified that he was unfairly terminated without any valid reason and without process. There is no indication that this position was not correct since the claimant’s case remained uncontroverted.
19. I find that the claimant has established his case against the respondents as prayed and I find for the claimant and award him according as follows:1. 1 month salary in lieu of notice = kshs 9,500/-2. 8 months salary as compensation for he unfair termination = 8x9,500/-= kshs 76,000/-3. Underpayment of salary as pleaded= kshs 10,954. 70-9500=1454. 70x24months4. Rest of claim being time barred = kshs 34,913. 5.Payment of house allowance as pleaded for 24 months’ rent being time barred = 15% of 10,954. 70 x24=39,437Total= kshs 159,850/-Less statutory deductions.6. The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgement
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025. HELLEN WASILWAJUDGE