Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mwololo v Sana Industries Company Limited (Appeal E215 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2445 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court allowed an employment appeal, found the worker protected under section 37, rejected the employer’s abscondment case, and held the termination unfair.
Ashleys Kenya Ltd v Opiyo (Appeal E357 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2441 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the respondent became an employee after a consultancy lapsed, and that the appellant’s termination was unfair for lack of due process.
PJ Dave Flora Ltd v Nyongesa (Appeal E416 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2439 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Employment and Labour Relations Court allowed the employer’s appeal after finding the respondent admitted misconduct, so the trial court’s awards could not stand.
Mutuku v Zheng Hong (K) Limited (Appeal E356 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2443 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the termination was unfair because the employer’s operational shutdown amounted to redundancy without compliance with statutory procedure.
Cheva v Pan Africa Logistics Limited (Environment and Land Case E298 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 811 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Court found that although the Respondent proved financial difficulty, it did not prove that the Claimant’s particular role had become redundant in September 2023, nor did it show a fresh redundancy process, fresh notice, Labour Officer notice, or contemporaneous consultation proximate to the actual termination. The 2021 redundancy exercise had been overtaken by continued employment, unpaid leave, and recall to work. The termination was therefore substantively and procedurally unfair under sections 40 and 45 of the Employment Act. The Claimant was awarded severance, admitted outstanding gr…
Source excerpt
Sheikh v Motrex Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 245 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 783 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that sleeping while on security duty was a serious dereliction of duty and, given the Claimant’s own admission in the disciplinary minutes, provided a valid and fair substantive reason for dismissal. However, because the Respondent issued the show-cause notice and disciplinary hearing invitation on the same day and heard the Claimant without giving reasonable time to prepare a defence, the termination was procedurally unfair under section 41 of the Employment Act. The Court therefore awarded limited compensation for procedural unfairness only and dismissed the other monetary cl…
Source excerpt
Okoso v Pinkerton's (Kenya) Limited (Appeal E395 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2397 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the appellant had already filed an application for review of the same judgment and then lodged the appeal, thereby pursuing both remedies on the same matter in an impermissible and abusive manner. Although the court acknowledged that non-payment of salary can amount to constructive dismissal, it held that the appellant could not maintain the appeal after electing to seek review, and the pending review ruling sufficed.
Source excerpt
Kungu v Board of Managment Alliance High School (Appeal E180 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2395 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appellant worked for the respondent from 2016 to 2021, which was far beyond the statutory limit for casual engagement. Her employment therefore converted by operation of Section 37 into regular employment. The respondent did not prove lawful termination or any genuine attempts to contact the appellant before alleging abscondment. The termination was therefore unfair, and the appellant was entitled to statutory remedies.
Source excerpt
Genga v Kenya Vehicle Manufacturers Ltd (Appeal E281 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2385 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Appellant voluntarily signed a piece rate contract and the evidence, including payslips and the recommendation letter, showed a need-based task engagement rather than permanent employment. He did not prove a termination letter, notice, or any employer act terminating the relationship. Since the Appellant failed to establish termination or unfairness on a balance of probabilities, the trial court was correct to dismiss the claim and deny reliefs.
Source excerpt
Mutwiwa v Trinity Kindergarten Preparatory School (Appeal E213 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2382 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appellate court found that the Respondent failed to prove the alleged competing school, failed to justify the termination reason, and failed to comply with the mandatory disciplinary hearing requirements under section 41 of the Employment Act. The dismissal was therefore substantively and procedurally unfair, and the Appellant was entitled to compensation and related employment dues.
Source excerpt
Explore more
