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
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.
Owour v Kenya Revenue Authority & 4 others (Petition E232 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2442 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court dismissed an application to suspend a termination letter, holding that the relief sought would amount to interim reinstatement without exceptional circumstances.
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
Otieno v Kenyatta University (Appeal E064 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2390 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because it was fatally defective for want of the decree appealed against, which made the record of appeal incomplete. In any event, the court found that the respondent had proved a valid reason for summary dismissal and followed a fair disciplinary process, so the dismissal was substantively and procedurally justified.
Source excerpt
Proteq-X Security Systems Ltd v Obure (Appeal E056 of 2022) [2026] KEELRC 2388 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because the respondent’s refusal to accept lawful redeployment and his subsequent absence from duty amounted to gross misconduct, defeating the unfair termination claim. The court further held that claims for underpayment, overtime, house allowance and rest days were continuing injuries filed outside the statutory limitation period and were therefore not maintainable. However, pay for days worked in August 2019 remained due because the employer produced no proof of payment and the respondent was entitled to wages for work already done.
Source excerpt
Wanyonyi v G4S Ltd (Appeal E043 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2391 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the evidence showed that the appellant, a security guard, was negligent in performing his duties at the client’s premises, failed to notice the theft and did not properly hand over his station. The respondent suspended him, invited him to a disciplinary hearing, and heard his representations before dismissing him. That conduct satisfied the procedural and substantive requirements of the Employment Act, and the negligence amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal.
Source excerpt
Shimanyula v Kenya Industrial Estates Ltd (Cause E695 of 2020) [2026] KEELRC 2411 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the respondent had valid and fair reasons to dismiss the claimant because he prepared and signed a loan appraisal containing false location details and misleading photographs, admitted giving false information, and thereby exposed the respondent to attempted fraud. The court further held that the respondent complied with procedural fairness by issuing a show cause letter, receiving a response, holding a disciplinary hearing, and scheduling an appeal hearing that the claimant failed to attend. The dismissal was therefore substantively and procedurally fair.
Source excerpt
Ongoro v SGA Guarding Ltd & another (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E065 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2403 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because the Respondents failed to comply with mandatory procedural fairness requirements. The suspension letter was not a valid notice to show cause, the Appellant was ambushed with a hearing on less than one day’s notice, the process denied reasonable preparation and hearing rights, and the appeal was not independent because persons involved in the original disciplinary process sat on the appeal panel. The trial court therefore erred in finding the termination lawful, and the Appellant was entitled to compensation.
Source excerpt
Ndivo v Henkel Kenya Ltd (Cause E178 of 2020) [2026] KEELRC 2384 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the respondent failed to sufficiently prove the fictitious payment and conflict-of-interest allegations, but successfully proved insubordination because the claimant knowingly ignored a direct, lawful instruction from her line manager to obtain approval before processing purchase orders related to promotion and sponsorship activities. That single proved ground justified summary dismissal under section 44(4)(e) of the Employment Act. The constitutional and defamation claims were unproved. The counterclaim failed because the respondent did not strictly prove that the claiman…
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
