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.
Aringo v Blue Nile Rolling Mills (Appeal E165 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2438 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because no mandatory disciplinary hearing was shown. The court held the termination unfair, set aside the trial judgment, and awarded compensation, notice pay, dues and costs.
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.
Mwangangi v H Young & Company Ltd Estate Africa Limited (Appeal E409 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2444 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court found the appellant was unfairly terminated when the respondent ended his employment over project completion without complying with statutory safeguards.
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.
Mithika v Manpower Networks Ltd (Environment and Land Case E601 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 809 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Claimant failed to prove that his engagement with the Respondent was a continuous monthly contract or that it converted under section 37 into fixed employment. The documentary evidence showed signed piece-rate engagement terms, variable payments, weekly payrolls and daily engagement records consistent with work-availability-based engagement. Because the Claimant did not establish that the Respondent terminated a subsisting continuous contract on 2nd September 2024, the claims for unfair termination, notice pay, service pay and compensation failed. However, the existence of an employment r…
Source excerpt
Ruma v Proto Energy Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E591 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 781 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the Respondent proved a valid substantive reason for disciplinary action because the Claimant reported to an LPG safety-sensitive shift after consuming alcohol, but the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the Claimant was given an unreasonably compressed opportunity to answer the Notice to Show Cause and prepare for the hearing. The Claimant therefore succeeded only on procedural unfairness and limited monetary relief.
Source excerpt
Lorna v Cofftea Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E438 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 810 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Claimant proved an employment relationship with Tradco Services Limited, proved that her employment ended before the fixed-term contract expiry, and no valid reason or disciplinary process was shown by the Respondents. The termination was therefore substantively and procedurally unfair. However, the court rejected the pleaded salary of KShs. 33,360 and relied on the written contract salary of KShs. 21,000, awarded notice pay, pro-rated leave and four months' compensation, dismissed the public holiday claim for want of proof, and held Tradco Services Limited solely liable.
Source excerpt
Sana Industries Ltd v Mokeira (Appeal E302 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2392 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the appellant’s own records showed the respondent was present and signed in on 30 and 31 January 2024, yet the appellant alleged absenteeism and desertion on those very dates. The court found the disciplinary process and records unreliable and manipulated, held that the respondent was unfairly terminated, and affirmed conversion of the relationship into protected employment under section 37. However, the court adjusted the monetary award to reflect the respondent’s wage and statutory limits, upheld compensation and notice pay, allowed leave and underpayments on revis…
Source excerpt
Explore more
