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
Kingiri v Surtech Ltd & another (Appeal E030 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2440 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court allowed the appeal, held that non-payment of salary and failure to regularize the employment relationship amounted to constructive unfair dismissal, and awarded compensation and notice pay.
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
Were v Nairobi Chapel & 2 others (Cause 198 of 2020) [2026] KEELRC 2412 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the employer's conduct in creating financial pressure, inducing resignation, promising an exit package, and then replacing the claimant's position amounted to constructive dismissal. It also held that the bank breached its duty of care by reversing funds from the claimant's account without involving her, so the claimant was entitled to repayment with commercial interest, subject to an offset mechanism against any competing debit balance. The respondents' counterclaims failed because the bank's unilateral reversal was wrongful and the employer did not prove quantified loss…
Source excerpt
Hart v Schenker Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 4 of 2019) [2026] KEELRC 2374 (KLR) (10 August 2026) (Judgment)
The claimant proved a sustained course of conduct by the respondent—public humiliation, unilateral and unexplained alteration of reporting lines, an unfair final warning without a hearing, repeated silence to her complaints, and refusal of a visa support letter—that objectively destroyed mutual trust and confidence and made continued employment intolerable. Her evidence was credible, documentary, and sufficient despite the respondent’s failure to call witnesses. The respondent’s counterclaim failed because it was unproved and, independently, time-barred. Accordingly, the claimant was construc…
Source excerpt
Pride Kings Services Limited v Koniala (Appeal E111 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2267 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appellate court found that the respondent had been constructively dismissed because non-payment of salaries for three months amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. The trial magistrate correctly held that there was constructive dismissal and was entitled to award compensation. However, the monetary awards required revision to comply with the limitation period for continuing injury, resulting in reduction of leave and house allowance sums while upholding the finding on underpayment and compensation.
Source excerpt
Nikolic v Lewis alias Christine Muturi and Christine Wanami t/a Healthcare Consultants & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E1075 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2312 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the parties had an employment relationship, that the Respondents fundamentally breached the contract by failing to pay salary, and that this breach forced the Claimant to resign, amounting to constructive dismissal. The Claimant was therefore entitled to salary arrears from 1 July 2024 and compensation for unfair termination, but not constitutional or mental distress damages.
Source excerpt
Njuguna v Jomo Kenyatta Girls High School (Appeal E082 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2217 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded only on overtime. The trial court lawfully exercised discretion in awarding one month’s compensation because section 49(4) requires consideration of service length and related factors, and the appellant had served only about 13 months and received terminal dues. However, the token overtime award had no legal basis because overtime must be calculated using the statutory formula under the relevant wage order; on the appellant’s evidence, the proper overtime award was Kshs. 119,340.
Source excerpt
Mwaghumba & 8 others v Mistry V Naran Mulji & Company Ltd (Cause E398 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 447 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court found that all nine Claimants were employees of the Respondent, that the Respondent failed to produce mandatory payroll, leave and employment records, and that the Claimants proved prolonged non-payment of wages. That persistent non-payment was a fundamental breach of contract, destroying mutual trust and confidence and leaving the Claimants with no reasonable alternative but to resign. Their resignations therefore amounted to constructive dismissal. The Claimants were awarded salary arrears as pleaded, one month’s notice pay, accrued leave, house allowance, compensation equal to te…
Source excerpt
Nikolic v Lewis alias Muturi alias Wanami t/a Healthcare Consultants & another (Cause E1075 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2273 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the offer letter and uncontested evidence established an employment relationship, that the Respondents fundamentally breached the contract by failing to pay salary, and that this breach forced the Claimant to resign, amounting to constructive dismissal. The Claimant therefore earned salary arrears from 1 July 2024 to 14 August 2024, quantified at Ksh. 525,000, and compensation for unfair termination equal to two months' salary, Ksh. 700,000, but not constitutional or mental distress damages.
Source excerpt
Otieno v Petro Oil Kenya Ltd (Cause E016 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 470 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court found that the respondent’s conduct on 15th December 2023 removed the claimant from active employment: she was replaced, required to hand over, not allowed to resume work, not paid, and no definite administrative leave was clearly communicated. The later show cause and disciplinary hearing came after the employment relationship had already been practically ended, so they could not cure the lack of prior hearing. The alleged abscondment was not proved. The respondent had a basis to investigate fuel discrepancies, but not to effect a termination without a fair process. The dismissal w…
Source excerpt
Explore more
