Kenya Case Law

Mwangangi v H Young & Company Ltd Estate Africa Limited (Appeal E409 of 2025)

Mwangangi v H Young & Company Ltd Estate Africa Limited (Appeal E409 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2444 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Appeal E409 of 2025

Judge

["M Mbarũ"]

The court found the appellant was unfairly terminated when the respondent ended his employment over project completion without complying with statutory safeguards.

• Unfair termination
• Project-based employment
• Notice pay
• Compensation for unfair termination
• Procedural fairness
• Substantive justification

Ruma v Proto Energy Ltd

Ruma v Proto Energy Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E591 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 781 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Employment and Labour Relations Cause E591 of 2025

Judge

["EM Mwamuye"]

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

• Unfair termination
• Summary dismissal
• Procedural fairness
• Substantive justification
• Intoxication at workplace
• Lpg safety-sensitive employment

Bulimo v Majid Al Futtam Hypermarkets Ltd

Bulimo v Majid Al Futtam Hypermarkets Ltd (Cause E541 of 2022) [2026] KEELRC 2289 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Cause E541 of 2022

Judge

["AN Mwaure"]

The Court found that the Claimant accepted money from a supplier while serving as Store Manager, which breached the Respondent’s code of ethics and his employment contract, thereby giving the Respondent a valid reason for dismissal. The Court also found that the Claimant was issued with a show-cause letter, heard in disciplinary proceedings, and given an appeal opportunity; accordingly, the dismissal satisfied both substantive justification and procedural fairness under the Employment Act. The claim for unfair termination therefore failed.

Source excerpt

• Summary dismissal
• Unfair termination
• Procedural fairness
• Substantive justification
• Conflict of interest
• Code of ethics

Shuga v Registered Trustees of the Salvation Army Likoni Corps

Shuga v Registered Trustees of the Salvation Army Likoni Corps (Cause E143 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 476 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Cause E143 of 2025

Judge

["EM Mwamuye"]

The Court found that the Claimant’s employment commenced on 2 May 2016 because the Respondent produced no records to rebut that assertion. The Respondent also failed to prove a valid reason for termination because the alleged sleeping on duty and resulting theft were unsupported by cogent evidence. Procedural fairness was not proved because service of the show cause letter and attendance at disciplinary hearings were not demonstrated. The termination was therefore unfair and unlawful, and the Claimant was entitled to the proven monetary remedies within the statutory limitation period.

Source excerpt

• Unfair termination
• Summary dismissal
• Procedural fairness
• Substantive justification
• Underpayment
• House allowance

Total Security Surveillance Ltd v Omutakha

Total Security Surveillance Ltd v Omutakha (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E028 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2196 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E028 of 2025

Judge

["K Ocharo"]

The appeal failed because the dismissal process was defective in substance and procedure: the dismissal letter relied on grounds that were not fairly put to the employee, one ground was never investigated to conclusion, the drunkenness allegation was unproved, the hearing was compromised by lack of proper notice and by the branch manager chairing the panel despite being the accused assaulting party, and the employer’s alternative resignation narrative contradicted its own documents. The trial court’s monetary awards and ancillary orders were supported by the record and disclosed no basis for…

Source excerpt

• Unfair termination
• Summary dismissal
• Procedural fairness
• Substantive justification
• Section 41 hearing
• Section 43 proof of reasons

Oongo v Meds Maisha Kenya Ltd

Oongo v Meds Maisha Kenya Ltd (Cause E070 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2269 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Cause E070 of 2025

Judge

["Nzioki wa Makau"]

The Court held that the redundancy was substantively and procedurally unfair because there was no evidence of compliance with the mandatory notice requirements under section 40(1), no proof of any lawful selection criteria or meaningful consultation, and the Respondent’s immediate disconnection of the Claimant from systems and retrieval of work equipment showed the process was effectively a termination already decided. However, the Court found that the Claimant had been paid the redundancy dues due under section 40, including notice, severance, and leave pay, so relief was limited to compensa…

Source excerpt

• Redundancy
• Procedural fairness
• Substantive justification
• Consultation
• Selection criteria
• Compensation for unfair termination

Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals and Allied Workers (KUDHEIHA) v Moi University

Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals and Allied Workers (KUDHEIHA) v Moi University (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E040 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2354 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Employment and Labour Relations Cause E040 of 2025

Judge

["MA Onyango"]

The Court held that Moi University had a genuine operational reason for the redundancy, but the process was unlawful because the notice failed to disclose the extent of the redundancy and was not shown to have been served on the labour officer, consultations were incomplete, the selection criteria used by PKF did not comply with section 40(1)(c), and redundancy dues were not proved as paid before release. Reinstatement was declined as impracticable, and compensation was limited to two months' gross salary per affected employee together with outstanding statutory and contractual redundancy due…

Source excerpt

• Redundancy
• Procedural fairness
• Substantive justification
• Collective bargaining agreement
• Union consultation
• Selection criteria

Nyamolo v One Acre Fund

Nyamolo v One Acre Fund (Cause E021 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2318 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Cause E021 of 2025

Judge

["DN Nderitu"]

The Respondent failed to prove a genuine and reasonable basis for the fraud allegation because the Claimant gave a detailed explanation, no audit or supporting evidence of theft was produced, and the investigation material was incomplete and unsigned. Procedurally, the dismissal was unfair because the Claimant requested the investigation report and supporting evidence before the hearing but was not supplied with them, denying her a meaningful defence. The Court therefore held the dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair and unlawful, but declined reinstatement because the fixed-ter…

Source excerpt

• Unfair termination
• Summary dismissal
• Procedural fairness
• Substantive justification
• Fixed-term contract
• Reinstatement

Maina v National Coffee Co-operative Union Limited

Maina v National Coffee Co-operative Union Limited (Cause E621 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2261 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Cause E621 of 2024

Judge

["ON Makau"]

The Respondent failed to adduce evidence proving valid reasons for termination or compliance with fair procedure. The Claimant had completed probation, was not shown to have been appraised or warned, and was not given a proper disciplinary hearing under section 41. The termination was therefore unfair and unlawful under section 45, justifying notice pay, compensation, salary arrears, and leave pay.

Source excerpt

• Unfair termination
• Procedural fairness
• Substantive justification
• Salary arrears
• Notice pay
• Leave pay

Ochung v Aga Khan Hospital Kisumu

Ochung v Aga Khan Hospital Kisumu (Cause E074 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2207 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Cause E074 of 2025

Judge

["Nzioki wa Makau"]

The Court held that the Respondent complied with the procedural requirements of section 41 by issuing a show cause letter, conducting disciplinary hearings, allowing the Claimant to respond and question evidence, and informing him of his right to be accompanied. It further found that CCTV evidence showed suspicious participation by the Claimant in conduct outside his scope of work, supporting the Respondent’s belief in misconduct. The signed discharge voucher also signified settlement of terminal dues and waiver of further claims. The dismissal was therefore neither unlawful nor procedurally…

Source excerpt

• Unfair termination
• Summary dismissal
• Disciplinary procedure
• Procedural fairness
• Substantive justification
• Discharge voucher