https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1491

Gikunga v Suhufi Agencies Limited (Cause 64 of 2019) [2026] KEELRC 1491 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1491 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa Cause 64 of 2019 K Ocharo, J May 28, 2026 Between Francis Kiarie Gikunga Claimant and Suhufi Agencies Limited Respondent Judgment 1.Alleging that at all material times, he was an employee of the Respondent, whose employment the latter terminated unfairly and unlawfully, the Claimant sued the Respondent seeking the following reliefs;I.A declaration that the dismissal of the claimant from employment by the Respondent was unlawful, illegal, unfair and unjust.II.2 months ‘pay in lieu of notice, Kshs 414,000III.Unpaid annual leave for 2 years, Kshs 207,000/30 X 21 X 2 Kshs 289,800IV.Unpaid house allowance Kshs 207,000 X 15% X 27Kshs 838,350.V.Service pay for 2 years worked Kshs 207,000/2 X 2Kshs 207,00VI.Damages under Section 49 of the Employment Act,Kshs 207,000 X 12 months, Kshs 2,484,000VII.Unpaid paternity leave in November 2018, Kshs 103,500VIII.Unpaid NHIF contributions Kshs 1,700 X 27 Kshs 45,900IX.deducted but not remitted to KRAKshs 55,000 X 27 months Kshs 1,485,000X.Overtime 35 hours per week X 108 weeks X 1.5 at Kshs 863 per hour Kshs 4,893,210XI.Public holidays 863 per hour X 2 X 8 X 16 days Kshs 220,928XII.Certificate of serviceXII.Interest on the amounts awardedXIV.Cost of the claim.XV.Any other relief the court may deem fit to grant. 2.The Respondent challenged the Claimant’s case in the Reply to the Memorandum of Claim dated 10th October 2019, asserting that the Claimant was not its employee. It denied the Claimant’s entitlement to the reliefs sought. 3.At the hearing, the parties adopted their witness statements filed herein as part of their evidence in chief, and presented as their documentary evidence, the documents filed under their various lists herein. Claimant’s case 4.The Claimant’s case is that he was employed by the Respondent, Suhufi Agencies Ltd, on or about 1st May 2017 as a Site Manager, Engineer, and Site Agent, at a gross monthly salary of KShs 207,000/=. He states that he worked continuously for the Respondent until 24th August 2019, when his employment was unlawfully and unfairly terminated without notice. According to the Claimant, the dismissal caused him loss, damage, and financial hardship. 5.The Claimant states that despite serving the Respondent for more than two years, he was never issued with a letter of appointment or a contract of employment. He further states that the Respondent did not issue him with payslips and instead paid his salary in cash, by cheque, or via M-Pesa. He contends that although statutory deductions such as PAYE and NHIF were deducted from his salary, the Respondent failed to remit them to the relevant authorities. 6.The Claimant explains that his duties included representing the contractor at meetings, coordinating projects, handling correspondence with consultants and employers, preparing interim payment certificates, supervising project timelines, preparing budgets and cash flow projections, approving labour and equipment returns, reviewing designs, and preparing tender documents. 7.He states that he diligently performed his duties and that, due to his competence, the Respondent’s director, Mr Siyad Isaak Hassan, delegated many managerial responsibilities to him because Mr Hassan was not always present at the project sites and was not a trained civil engineer. 8.The Claimant further states that he worked on several projects, including the Changamwe–Kwa Jomvu water pipe relocation project, the Mombasa County water services improvement project in Likoni, the Mandera Water Supply Infrastructure Programme, and the Mama Ngina Drive Waterfront regeneration project in Mombasa. 9.The Claimant states that prior to his dismissal, he had never received any complaints about his work performance and had not been issued with warning letters or subjected to any disciplinary process. 10.He explains that on 24th August 2019, a Saturday, he reported for work as usual from 6:00 a.m. until about 2:00 p.m. After completing his duties for the day and after staff had returned tools and machinery, and casual employees had left, he travelled to Voi to attend a colleague’s family function. Later that evening, at around 7:00 p.m., he received a WhatsApp message and an SMS from the Respondent’s director dismissing him from employment on the allegation that he had disobeyed instructions by attending the function in Voi. He states that he was shocked by the dismissal because he had travelled after working hours and had completed all his duties for the day. 11.The Claimant further states that after terminating his employment, the Respondent’s director posted notices on the Respondent’s Facebook page and WhatsApp group announcing his termination. He maintains that he was never afforded an opportunity to be heard, was not issued with a notice of termination, and was not paid his terminal dues. He therefore contends that the dismissal was unlawful, illegal, unfair, unjustified, and contrary to the Employment Act. 12.The Claimant further asserts that during his period of employment, he was not compensated for house allowance, overtime, public holiday dues, service pay, annual leave, or paternity leave when his son was born on 21st September 2018. He indicates that he consistently reported to work before 6:00 a.m. and departed after 9:00 p.m., including weekends and public holidays. According to the Claimant, whenever he requested remuneration for additional work, the Respondent assured him of a payment of Kshs 6 million upon the completion of the projects as remuneration for his diligent efforts. Moreover, he states that due to stringent project deadlines, he was instructed to remain at work and consequently did not take annual leave or paternity leave. 13.During his testimony under cross-examination, the Claimant acknowledged familiarity with the letter from the Engineers Board of Kenya dated 8th October 2019 and conceded that he was not registered with that Board. 14.He asserted that he is a Civil Engineer by profession and a registered Civil Engineer. He is registered with the Institute of Engineering Technicians and Technology. Though he has the certificate of registration, he hasn’t presented it in evidence. 15.He confirmed that he had been charged in Kiambu Criminal Case No. 1597 of 2019 with forgery relating to an alleged Engineers Board of Kenya Graduate Engineer Certificate, which he maintained was fabricated. 16.The Claimant maintained that he was a Civil Engineer by profession and a registered practising engineer, though not registered with the Engineers Board of Kenya. He stated that he was registered with another body and disputed the suggestion that registration with the Engineers Board of Kenya is required to work as a site engineer. 17.He testified that he had submitted his qualification documents to the Respondent, including a Diploma in Civil Engineering from Rift Valley Institute of Science and Technology, a Higher National qualification in Construction, Building and Civil Engineering from Kenya Institute of Highway and Building Technology, and a transcript for a Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering from the Technical University of Kenya. 18.The Claimant further stated that he is presently employed by Abisima Limited in the capacity of a site agent, having commenced employment on 20th October 2022, albeit without possessing the official letter of employment. Concerning his employment with the Respondent, he indicated that he had requested an employment letter but was not provided with one, and that there are no written terms of employment, only verbal agreements. 19.He further stated that the cheque, bank slip, M-Pesa statements, and a Kenya Commercial Bank statement are a testament to the fact that he earned a salary from the Respondent. However, he clarified that several M-Pesa payments shown in his documents were not evidence of his monthly salary but rather funds sent to him to run the site. 20.The Claimant admitted that there was no written evidence showing that he was entitled to leave, house allowance, service pay, NHIF, or damages, but maintained that these claims were grounded in law. Respondent’s case 21.The Respondent called its Managing Director, Siyad Isaak Hassan, to present its case. The Respondent denied that the Claimant was employed on 1st May 2017 as a Site Manager with a gross salary of KShs 207,000/= per month. 22.The witness stated that there was no termination of the Claimant’s employment on 24th August 2019, as alleged. It further contends that there was no written contract of employment between the parties setting out the terms and conditions of service. 23.According to the Respondent’s witness, the Claimant served only intermittently and was engaged on a part-time basis whenever his services were required for specific tasks. The Respondent states that the Claimant was paid immediately upon completion of assigned tasks and that his engagement was terminable by either party at the close of any day without notice, pursuant to Section 35(1) of the Employment Act, 2007. 24.It was further denied that the Respondent failed to remit statutory deductions from the Claimant’s accounts. Accordingly, the Claimant's demands for alleged unremitted deductions are unfounded. Further, the Claimant is not entitled to the terminal dues claimed. He was not unfairly dismissed and is therefore not entitled to the claimed sum of Kshs 10,981,688/=. 25.It was further alleged that the Claimant fraudulently obtained money from the company by falsely representing himself as a professionally registered engineer with the Engineers Board of Kenya, despite not being registered at the time he was engaged by the Respondent. 26.It further states that on 8th October 2019, the Claimant was charged before the Kiambu Chief Magistrate’s Court with criminal offences of forging a graduate certificate purportedly issued by the Engineers Board of Kenya and of uttering the said document to the Respondent. 27.Cross-examined by Counsel for the Claimant, the witness testified that, although he had asserted that the Claimant would be paid at the end of each day, he had no document to substantiate this assertion. The Respondent has not presented any payroll to the Court because the Claimant was not an employee. 28.In the demand letter dated 14th October 2019, the Respondent, through its Counsel, demanded KShs. 5,589,000, alleging that the Claimant had fraudulently obtained it from its clients. 29.The witness stated that it engaged the Claimant to supervise its work. He would only be paid professional fees. He would be paid as the project proceeded. There were, however, no documents demonstrating that he [the witness] was the one paying him. 30.The witness admitted that the Claimant was arrested after he filed the instant matter against the Respondent. The witness was unaware that the Claimant had been acquitted of the charges on 3rd February 2025. 31.When the Respondent was undertaking the project, Mama Ngina Waterfront, the Claimant was in their working team. In its letter dated 25th January, 2018, he was described as a site agent. 32.The witness stated that he would give the Claimant instructions on the work to be done. 33.He was not issued with a termination notice as he was not an employee of the Respondent. Claimant’s submissions 34.The Claimant’s Counsel identified three issues for determination: whether the Claimant was employed continuously by the Respondent; whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment was unfair and unlawful; whether the Claimant forged his certificate from the Engineering Board of Kenya; and whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Memorandum of Claim. 35.Counsel submitted that, although he was not issued a written contract, the Claimant nonetheless had a valid oral contract of employment recognised under Section 2 of the Employment Act. He worked continuously for the Respondent from 1st May 2017 to 24th August 2019. The Respondent’s assertion that he was merely a part-time worker engaged intermittently is on quicksand. 36.It is further submitted that the Claimant placed before the Court ample evidence demonstrating that, at all material times, he was an employee of the Respondent, as defined in the Employment Act. The evidence included proof of salary payments by the Respondent through various modes, including bank transfers, M-Pesa, cash, and cheques, and produced bank and M-Pesa statements. Additionally, the Respondent submitted his Curriculum Vitae to the Ministry of Water and Irrigation, describing him as its employee, and he attended several meetings and tender processes representing the Respondent. 37.The Claimant was an employee, not an independent contractor, as the Respondent tends to suggest. The Claimant worked under the Respondent's control and command, was assigned duties across all projects undertaken by the Respondent, and was paid a salary rather than earning profits independently. To support this submission, Counsel places reliance on the case Charles Juma Oleng v M/s Auto Garage Ltd & Another [2014] eKLR. 38.Inarguably, the Respondent placed the Claimant on its payroll, a clear indication that he was its employee. To buttress this submission, the decision in Everline Manuni v Mudete Tea Factory [2018] eKLR is cited. 39.Counsel further submits that the Respondent referred to the Claimant as an employee in various communications and publicly announced the termination of his employment on Facebook and WhatsApp, thereby demonstrating that the Respondent exercised the power of dismissal over him. He therefore urges the court to find that the Claimant established a valid employment relationship and to invoke Article 41 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to fair labour practices. 40.On the issue of unlawful termination, Counsel submits that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the termination of the Claimant’s employment met the procedural and substantive fairness test envisioned in Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, respectively. The Respondent did not demonstrate that it heard the Claimant before dismissing him, and that the dismissal was anchored on valid and fair reasons. To demonstrate that the law placed the duty to adhere to the cannons of procedural and substantive fairness, reliance was placed on David Gichana Omuya v Mombasa Maize Millers Limited [2014] eKLR, and Magdalene M. Ngea v National Cereals and Produce Board, Cause No. 1335 of 2015. 41.Regarding forgery, it is submitted that the Respondent initiated inquiries with the Engineers Board of Kenya only after the Claimant had been terminated and after the Respondent had been served with the demand letter. He further submits that the chronology of events shows that the Respondent was on a witch-hunt against him and that the criminal charges were intended to frustrate his pursuit of justice. The Claimant further submits that he was acquitted in Kiambu Criminal Case No. 1597 of 2019, Republic v Francis Kiarie Gikunga, where judgment was delivered on 9th January 2024, and the trial court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The Claimant therefore argues that the allegations of forgery were false and intended to mislead the court. 42.It is further submitted that the Claimant was never granted annual leave or paternity leave, despite having worked continuously for the Respondent and despite the birth of his son on 21st September 2018. The Respondent deducted statutory dues, including NHIF and PAYE, but failed to remit them to the relevant authorities. 43.In conclusion, the Claimant urges the court to find that the Respondent unfairly and unlawfully terminated his employment and to award him the reliefs sought in the Memorandum of Claim. Respondent’s submissions 44.Counsel for the Respondent identifies three issues for determination, thus:a.whether or not the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2 read together with Part III of the Employment Act, 2007 or an independent contractor;b.If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, is the Claimant entitled to the reliefs sought in paragraph 14 of the Memorandum of Claim?c.If the answer to [a] above is in the negative, is the Claimant entitled to the remedies sought against the Respondent? 45.Counsel submits that the Claimant alleged that he was employed on 1st May 2017 as a Site Manager, Site Agent or Engineer, earning a gross salary of Kshs 207,000/= per month, but he did not produce a written contract of employment. Other than merely stating that his salary was in that sum, the Claimant did not tell the Court whether there were any other terms and conditions attached to the alleged contract of employment. It is incredible that a contract of employment would consist of a single term. 46.Counsel submits that what is to be determined in this matter is whether the oral engagement amounted to a contract of service or a contract for service. Relying on Christine Adot Lepiyo v Wycliffe Mwathi Pere [2013] KEELRC 244 (KLR), Counsel further submits that it is now settled that a majority of contracts for service are oral. 47.The submissions maintain that the Claimant was engaged as a professional Site Agent, Site Manager or Engineer to oversee specific construction projects and that his engagement ended once each project or specific task was completed. It refers to the projects cited by the Claimant, including the Proposed Regeneration of Mama Ngina Drive Waterfront and Cultural District, Mombasa County, the Mandera Water Supply Infrastructure project, and the Programme for Improvement of Water Services in Mombasa County, Likoni Area Phase I. Undoubtedly, each of these projects had specific timelines. 48.As such, the Claimant’s services were tied to specific projects and did not constitute indefinite employment. It further submits that the Claimant was not subject to the Respondent’s control over the manner of discharging his professional duties and was therefore rendering services as an independent contractor. 49.It is further submitted that the payments made to the Claimant by cheque, M-Pesa and petty cash vouchers were contractual fees, not salary or wages. The Claimant did not object to this mode of payment throughout the period of engagement. Further, there was no term requiring the Claimant to report to work or leave work at fixed times. He was free to take up other work, and the tools and materials used in discharging his professional duties belonged to him. The Respondent further argues that the absence of statutory deductions confirms that the Claimant was not an employee but an independent contractor. 50.On the alleged salary of KShs 207,000/= per month, the Respondent submits that the Claimant did not produce evidence of any consistent monthly salary payment of that amount. As can be deduced from the material presented to the Court, the amounts that the Claimant terms salary are not consistent. The Respondent submits that the Claimant did not produce payslips, payroll details, a payroll number, or any documentary proof that he was on the Respondent’s payroll. 51.It is asserted that, due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship, the claim concerning dismissal without notice is unsustainable. Furthermore, it contends that the claims for PAYE, NHIF, annual leave, paternity leave, housing allowance, overtime, and public holidays are untenable, as they are based on the Employment Act, which does not govern independent contractors. The Respondent maintains that independent contractors are responsible for their own statutory deductions and are not entitled to the asserted employment benefits. 52.The Respondent further submits that the Claimant’s services were terminated after it was discovered that he was not a registered engineer under the Engineers Board of Kenya. It states that the Claimant was offering purported professional engineering services and was plainly unqualified. The Respondent also disputes the Claimant’s submission that he was on the Respondent’s payroll, stating that the alleged page relied on by the Claimant was merely an email extract and not payroll evidence. It further argues that documents relied on by the Claimant that refer to employment or termination should be considered in substance rather than form, and that they do not prove a contract of service. 53.In support of its position on the distinction between an employee and an independent contractor, the Respondent relies on Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd v Ndegwa & Another [2023] KECA 226 (KLR), Albert Cheboi & Another v Insurance Regulatory Authority [2020] eKLR, and Antony Karanja Wainaina v Adrian Company Limited, Cause No. 1390 of 2014. 54.The Respondent concludes that the Claimant has failed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities and urges the court to dismiss the claim with costs. Analysis and determination 55.I have carefully considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions by the parties, and the following issues emerge for determination:i.What was the nature of the engagement between the Claimant and the Respondent?ii.Whether the Claimant’s employment was unfairly and unlawfully terminated.iii.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. What was the nature of the engagement between the Claimant and Respondent? 56.Parties were at convergence; there was some form of engagement between them during the period relevant to the instant case. However, they took diametrically opposed positions on the precise nature of the engagement. 57.In cases where the nature of the engagement between the parties is heavily contested, parties need to be absolutely clear, both in their pleadings and in their evidence, about what they contend the nature of the engagement was. The duty is even heavier for the employer, particularly where there is no written contract setting out the terms and conditions of the engagement. I state this bearing in mind the stipulations of Section 9 of the Employment Act, which places upon the employer the responsibility to draw up and facilitate the execution of contracts of service. 58.A general rule is that pleadings must be lucid, logical and intelligible. Pleadings serve to bring clarity to the notice of the court and the parties in an action, setting out the issues upon which reliance is to be placed. This objective can only be attained when parties state their cases with precision, the degree of which depends on the circumstances of each case. Every pleading must contain a clear and concise statement of material facts upon which the pleader relies. 59.I have carefully considered the Respondent’s pleadings, and without hesitation, point out that, besides making a general denial in paragraph 8, to the effect that since the Claimant was not its employee, no contract of employment could have been issued to him, nowhere did it plead with exactitude or at all the nature of the engagement between it and the Claimant. No mention was made to the effect that the Claimant was an independent contractor. 60.Equally, the Respondent’s witness’s statement turned evidence in chief, the Respondent did not describe the Claimant’s engagement as that of a contract for service, but gave a description which, in my view, was misaligned. At paragraph 5, the witness stated;“That the Claimant served as, and when necessary, and intermittently, hired by the Respondent, when he was called upon to perform some specific tasks and was paid immediately after the completion of the tasks.” 61.And at paragraph 6;“The Claimant was a hired part-time, paid on a daily basis, and whose hire contract was terminable by either party at the close of any day without notice according to Section 35[1] of the Employment Act, 2007.” 62.I take the firm view that the foregoing statements do not describe an independent contractor; in fact, they show the Claimant to be an employee under an engagement of service. Additionally, the WhatsApp message extracts, set out verbatim in paragraph 66, support this position. 63.I note that the Respondent’s Counsel and the Claimant’s Counsel have made extensive submissions on whether the Claimant served the Respondent under a contract of service or a contract for services. Two points must be made. First, issues are ordinarily derived from the parties' pleadings. Second, submissions cannot serve as a substitute for pleadings or evidence. See Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi v Mwangi Stephen Muriithi & Another [2014] eKLR. 64.Even if the Respondent were to lead evidence to show that the Claimant was an independent contractor, nothing as a matter of legal principle could turn on that evidence, because the Claimant's status as an independent contractor was not pleaded. Whether the Claimant’s termination was unfair and unlawful 65.Having found that the relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent was that of employer-employee, I now turn to consider whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment met the fairness test contemplated under the Employment Act. It is imperative to note that the Claimant’s assertion that his employment was terminated at the Respondent’s initiative was not rebutted. The Respondent merely asserted that an unfair or unlawful termination did not occur. I think this approach was influenced by the Respondent’s decision to be sketchy about the relationship between it and the Claimant. 66.The Claimant contended that the Respondent terminated his employment via WhatsApp Message. An extract of the messages that spoke to the termination was tendered in evidence by the Claimant. The message read in part;“Hope you are doing well.This is to notify you that Mr Francis Kiarie’s employment with Suhufi Agencies Limited is terminated effective immediately. Therefore, kindly remove him from all communications going forward.”In another message, the Respondent posted;“To all partnersWe hereby notify everyone that Mr Frank Kiarie Gikunga has been terminated from Suhufi Agencies Limited and has no authority to represent the Company any more………….”The authenticity of these messages was not controverted at all. 67.Inarguably, for a termination of employment to pass the fairness test, it must be demonstrated that there was adherence to the dictates of procedural fairness, namely that the affected employee was informed of the employer’s intention to terminate his employment and of the basis for that intention; that the affected employee was given an adequate opportunity to prepare and make representations on the grounds; and that the employer considered those representations before taking a final decision. The Respondent did not lead any evidence to establish this. I hesitate not to conclude that the termination was procedurally unfair. 68.Section 43 of the Employment Act places a duty on the employer in disputes concerning the termination of an employee’s employment to prove the reason for the termination. In default, the termination shall be deemed unfair by virtue of Section 45 of the Act. Prevented by the position it took regarding its relationship with the Claimant, which this Court has held not to be convincing, the Respondent did not present any evidence to discharge the legal burden under this provision. By operation of law, therefore, the termination should be deemed substantively unfair. 69.In Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission [2013] eKLR, the court held that termination must be supported by both substantive justification and procedural fairness.“However, for a termination to pass the fairness test, it must be shown that there was not only substantive justification for the termination but also procedural fairness.” Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought 70.The Claimant seeks several forms of monetary relief based on a pleaded gross salary of KShs 207,000/= per month. The Respondent, having taken the position that the Claimant was not its employee, vehemently asserted that the Claimant did not earn a monthly salary. In his witness statement, alluded to hereinabove, the Respondent’s witness merely asserted that the Claimant would be paid at the end of each day of work. No documents were produced to demonstrate this or to show how much per day. Further, at some point, and in a radical departure from this evidence, the Respondent asserted that the Claimant would be paid at the end of each project. Again, no document or any other evidence was produced to show when and how much. This state of affairs would only attract one reasonable conclusion: The Claimant’s evidence on salary was not duly rebutted. 71.The salary of KShs. 207,000 was pleaded from the outset. The Respondent, as a custodian of employment documents, knew it would be required to discount the evidence. Nothing would have been easier for it than to produce payment documents regarding the Claimant's remuneration, whether for a contract for services, as it alleged, or a contract of service, as the Claimant alleged. By being sketchy on this material matter, the Respondent took a perilous route. It has come back to bite it. 72.I have considered the Respondent’s Counsel’s submissions that the amounts from the documents tendered in evidence by the Claimant do not show a consistent pattern of salary payment, and the amounts do not emerge. This submission ignores the unchallenged evidence by the Claimant that the Respondent was not consistent in the mode through which he was paying him the salary, and the failure by the Respondent to discharge his duty as a custodian of employment records mentioned above. I find that, on the balance of probabilities, the Claimant proved that the amount was his gross salary. 73.In my view, the Claimant’s employment was terminable under Section 35 of the Employment Act by 28 days’ notice. None was issued. He is hereby awarded notice pay equivalent to one month’s gross salary. 74.Section 49[1][c] of the Employment Act, 2007, grants authority to the courts to award compensation to an employee who has successfully contested their employer’s decision to terminate employment on the grounds of unfairness. Nonetheless, it is important to note that such authority is discretionary and exercised in accordance with the specific circumstances of each case. 75.I have carefully considered the circumstances under which the Claimant’s employment was terminated. The length of service to the Respondent, and the fact that, in no proven manner, he did not contribute to the termination of his employment, and find that he is entitled to the compensatory award, to an extent of three months’ gross salary. 76.The claims for annual leave and paternity leave succeed because the Respondent failed to tender leave records or any other evidence to disprove them. The Claimant is therefore entitled to unpaid annual leave for two years at KShs 289,800/= and to paternity leave pay at KShs 103,500. 77.The claim for house allowance is unsubstantiated. The Claimant’s assertion, as I understood him, was that the sum of KShs. 207,000 constituted the gross salary, which I interpret to include the house allowance. 78.The Claimant sought service pay. As his employment was terminable by notice under the stipulations of Section 35 of the Employment Act, and as it was not demonstrated that he is among those employees excluded by statute, Section 35[6] of the Employment Act, from asserting entitlement to the benefit, I do not hesitate to award him the relief. Thus 207,000 x15/30x2=207,000. 79.The Claimant asserted that though the Respondent deducted his salary for PAYE and NHIF, remittances, it did not remit the same to the relevant authorities, and sought a refund of specific amounts. In my view, the Claims are, in nature, liquidated claims that needed to be specifically proved. They were not so proven or at all. They are hereby declined. By parity of reasoning, the claims for overtime and public holidays, which were merely thrown to court, fail. 80.A certificate of service is an employee’s statutory right. It matters not how he has exited his employment. The Claimant is entitled to the same. 81.In the upshot, Judgment is hereby entered for the Claimant against the Respondent for;a.A declaration that his employment was unfairly terminated by the Respondent.b.Compensation pursuant to the provisions of Section 49[1][c] of the Employment Act, 2007, three months’ gross salary, KShs. 621,000.c.Compensation for earned but untaken leave days, KShs. 289,800.d.Compensation for earned but untaken paternity leave days, KShs. 103,500.e.One month’s salary in lieu of notice, KShs. 207,000.f.Interest on the above sums at court rates from the date of this Judgment till full payment.g.The Respondent shall issue a certificate of service to the Claimant within 30 days of today.h.Costs of this suit. READ SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2026.OCHARO KEBIRAJUDGE.