https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1474

Omondi v B.O.M Nakuru West Secondary School (Appeal E025 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1474 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1474 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru Appeal E025 of 2025 J Rika, J May 29, 2026 Between Sylvester Omondi Appellant and B.O.M Nakuru West Secondary School Respondent (An Appeal from the Judgment of Hon. Kibellion, Principal Magistrate in Nakuru C.M.ELRC Cause Number 105 OF 2020 between the Parties herein) Judgment 1.The Appellant filed the Claim before the Trial Court. He pleaded that he was employed by the Respondent as a Security Guard on 5th September 2011. 2.He stated that the Respondent unfairly and unlawfully terminated his contract on 2nd June 2020. 3.He prayed for compensation for unfair termination and a broad spectrum of terminal benefits, costs, interest and any other suitable relief. 4.The Trial Court dismissed the Claim in its Judgment dated 3rd July 2024. It was the finding of the Trial Court that the Appellant received his terminal dues, and executed discharge. 5.The Appellant filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 14th July 2025, listing 12 Grounds of Appeal. The Grounds are generalized and duplicated, and may be compressed as follows: -a.The Trial Court wrongly analysed evidence, coming to a wrong conclusion.b.The Trial Court failed to make a finding on unfair termination.c.Judgment was against the weight of the evidence.d.The Trial Court erred, in failing to grant terminal benefits.e.The Trial Court erred in dismissing the Claim without a legal basis.f.The Trial Court did not appreciate evidence and submissions availed to it by the Appellant.g.The Trial Court erred in failing to find that the Respondent did not rebut the Appellant’s case. 6.The Appellant proposes that: -a.The Appeal is allowed.b.The Trial Court’s Judgment is reversed, and substituted with a Judgment of this Court.c.The Court reevaluates the evidence and declares that termination was unfair.d.The Claim proceeds for hearing before another Magistrate of competent jurisdiction.e.Costs of this Appeal be awarded to the Appellant. 7.The proposals are not indicated to be in the alternative, but are merely listed sequentially. 8.The Respondent was represented by the Attorney-General at the Trial. There was no representation on most occasions when the Appeal was mentioned before the Court, save on the last mention on 12th March 2026, when the State Counsel Bernice, made a late appearance and was granted 14 days to file and serve the Respondent’s Submissions. 9.The Appellant confirmed filing and service of his Submissions at the mention. Parties agreed that the Appeal is considered and determined on the strength of the Record of Appeal and Submissions. The Court Finds: - 10.Judgment of the Trial Court was delivered on 3rd July 2024. The Memorandum of Appeal is dated 14th July 2025, 11.Rule 12 of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2024, requires that Appeals to this Court, from the Magistrate’s Court, are filed within 30 days from the date of the Magistrate’s Court Judgment. 12.30 days for the filing of the Appeal lapsed on 2nd August 2024. The Record of Appeal was filed on 11th December 2025, while the Memorandum of Appeal is dated 14th July 2025, 11 months after the Trial Court delivered its Judgment. 13.Strangely, the Record of Appeal includes an order from the High Court at Nakuru, dated 26th May 2025, granting the Appellant leave to appeal against the decision of Hon. K. Kibellion Principal Magistrate Nakuru, delivered on 3rd July 2024. 14.It is not indicated in the order, in which Court the Judgment of Hon. Kibellion was delivered. 15.It is not explained in what context, the High Court would grant leave to a litigant, to file an Appeal in the E&LRC. 16.There was no order issued by the E&LRC, granting the Appellant leave to file this Appeal. 17.In the words of Lord Denning on jurisdiction, in McFoy v. United Africa Co, Limited [1961], the order of the High Court exhibited by the Appellant is void, and in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. One cannot put something on nothing, and expect it to stay there. It will collapse. 18.The order exhibited at the very last page of the Record of Appeal, alleging to extend time to the Appellant to file the Appeal is a nullity. It cannot have extended time to the Appellant to file this Appeal. 19.Even if the Appeal had validly been filed, it would have collapsed on the basis of the letter of discharge executed by the Appellant, at page 40 of the Record of Appeal. 20.The letters states: -‘’ I herby accept Kshs. 30,000, being my final dues, based on my basic salary as relates to my 1 ½ year of service at Nakuru West Secondary School, from 1st February 2019 to 31st May 2020.I confirm and understand that once I sign this discharge, it will be irrevocable.I hereby release and discharge the School from all claims whatsoever, arising from the time of my employment with it.’’ 21.He signed the discharge on 2nd June 2020, the date he states he left employment. 22.Why then file the Claim at the Trial Court, and this Appeal, after the Appellant had voluntarily discharged the Respondent from further liability, way back on 2nd June 2020? 23.In Kimathi Mithika v. Coastal Bottlers Limited [2016[ e-KLR, a decision of the Court of Appeal which has been applied by the E&LRC in a various employment disputes, a discharge voucher was held to be a binding contract, between the Employee and the Employer. It can only be set aside on the same grounds that would justify setting aside of a contract, such as illegality, fraud, coercion, incapacity, or mistake. 24.The Appellant did not raise any grounds at the Trial Court, to dispute that he executed the discharge agreement voluntarily. 25.The Claim and the Appeal should never have been filed or entertained by the Courts.IT Is Ordered: -a.The Appeal is declined.b.No order on the costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, UNDER RULE 68[5] OF THE E&LRC [PROCEDURE] RULES, 2024, THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 2026.JAMES RIKAJUDGE