https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2198
The appeal failed because the record showed the appellant voluntarily resigned through a letter dated 7th November 2022 and executed a clearance form discharging the respondent from further claims. There was no evidentiary basis to support allegations of forgery or forced termination, and the monetary claims for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELRC 2198 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Wycliffe Osundwa Mango; Respondent: Hatari Security Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Appeal E001 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Employment and Labour Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed/declined
- Judges
- ["J Rika"]
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Resignation, Notice Pay, Terminal Benefits, Proof of Employment Claims, Appellate Review
- 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
Wycliffe Osundwa Mango
Appellant
Hatari Security Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was unfairly terminated or voluntarily resigned
- 2 Whether the resignation letter and clearance form were voluntary and valid
- 3 Whether the appellant proved entitlement to compensation, notice pay, overtime and off-duty day claims
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal failed because the record showed the appellant voluntarily resigned through a letter dated 7th November 2022 and executed a clearance form discharging the respondent from further claims. There was no evidentiary basis to support allegations of forgery or forced termination, and the monetary claims for overtime and off-duty days were unsupported by the pleadings and trial evidence. The trial court was therefore correct to reject compensation and notice pay, and the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed/declined
Orders
- The appeal is declined.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR** **RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU** **APPEAL NUMBER E001 OF 2026** **BETWEEEN** WYCLIFFE OSUNDWA MANGO .......................................................... APPELLANT **AND** HATARI SECURITY LIMITED ............................................................ RESPONDENT [A Partial Appeal from the Judgment of the Hon. L. Akoth, dated 19th December 2025, in Nakuru C.M.E.L.R.C Cause No. E214 of 2022, between the Parties herein] *Rika J* *Court Assistant: Emmanuel Kiprono* *\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_* *Maragia Ogaro & Company Advocates for the Appellant* *GNK & Associates, Advocates for the Respondent* *\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_* **JUDGMENT** 1. The Appeal herein bears similar factual background to **E&LRC No. E095 of 2025, James Macharia Kuria v. Hatari Security** **Limited.** 2. Representation is the same. 3. The Appellant was employed by the Respondent on 12th June 2018, as a Guard, in the Dog Section. 4. He complained that he was relocated by the Respondent to a different site, without consultation. 5. He alleged that although relocation was abrupt, he ‘acquiesced,’ but was later told that his contract had been terminated. 6. He filed the Claim at the Trial Court for unfair termination. He sought orders for compensation for unfair termination, notice pay and various terminal benefits. 7. The Respondent held the position that the Appellant resigned; his resignation accepted; he was cleared; and discharged the Respondent from future Claims. 8. The Trial Court agreed with the Respondent that the Appellant resigned, and declined the prayers for compensation and notice pay. 9. He was awarded terminal benefits including underpayment of salary, annual leave, off-duty days, overtime, uniform refund, costs and interest. 10. He filed his Memorandum of Appeal, raising the same Grounds of Appeal raised by James Macharia Kuria, in the Appeal cited at paragraph 1 of this Judgment. 11. Parties agreed that the Appeal is considered on the strength of the Record of Appeal and Submissions. It was last mentioned before the Court o 11th May 2026, when the Parties confirmed filing and exchange of their Submissions. **The Court Finds**: - 1. For the same reason given in the Judgment, in the James Macharia Kuria Appeal, this Appeal is unsustainable. 1. It is clear from the Record of Appeal that the Appellant wrote a letter of resignation dated 7th November 2022. 2. There was nothing placed before the Trial Court, to suggest that the letter was a forgery, as argued by the Appellant. 3. It was his letter, voluntarily authored, after he became disgruntled over site relocation, which to him was abrupt, and without consultation. 4. He filled and signed the clearance form. He declared that he would not have further claims against the Respondent. 5. Why would he turn around and allege that he was forced out? 6. The Trial Court correctly established that the Appellant voluntarily resigned, and did no therefore merit compensation and notice pay. 7. The Appellant’s pursuit of terminal benefits that he was not granted upon trial, or enhancement of terminal benefits that were granted, is without foundation. 8. His Statement of Claim did not contain any monetary figures. His evidence at page 139 of the Record of Appeal, was that he was earning a monthly salary of Kshs. 11,117. 9. In his Submissions, he was entitled to a monthly salary of Kshs. 19,502. He worked for 4 years, from 2018 to 2022. His cumulative salary over the period was about Kshs. 936,096. 10. Yet, he submits that he is owed overtime at Kshs. 826,520 and off-duty days at Kshs. 544,555. 11. The figures floated in his Submissions are not consistent with the payable monthly salary. They have no support in his pleadings and evidence at the Trial Court. 12. The Appeal has no merit at all. **IT IS ORDERED**: - 1. **The Appeal is declined.** 2. **Costs to the Respondent.** Dated, signed and delivered electronically at Nakuru, under Rule 68[5] of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2024, this 30th day of July 2026. James Rika Judge 