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
Mutunga v Essajee Amijee Ltd (Civil Suit 2643 of 2013) [2026] KEMC 852 (KLR) (2 September 2026) (Ruling)
The court dismissed an application to set aside a prior dismissal and revive an old employment-related suit, finding repeated non-attendance, delay, and no sufficient cause.
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
Juma v University of Nairobi (Constitutional Petition E223 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 13006 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)
[2026] KEHC 13006 (KLR)
Source excerpt
Omuhaka v Muraguri (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E314 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2420 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because the proposed amendments did not introduce a wholly new dispute; they only particularized claims already pleaded in the original statement of claim, and allowing them caused no prejudice that could not be cured by response. The trial court therefore erred in treating the application as time-barred and in refusing leave to amend, so the ruling was set aside and substituted with an order granting the amendment.
Source excerpt
Nyaribo t/a IN Nyaribo & Company Advocates v Public Service Commission & 3 others (Petition E124 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12955 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (18 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the preliminary objection failed because it depended on factual and substantive questions tied to the merits of the petition, not a pure point of law; the petition was not moot despite the recruitment having been completed because constitutional jurisdiction to test legality remained intact; however, the petitioner did not plead the alleged violations with reasonable precision and did not rebut the presumption of constitutionality attaching to Sections 13, 13B, 13C and 14 of the CBK Act. The impugned provisions were upheld as rational, proportionate safeguards against conf…
Source excerpt
Explore more
