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.
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.
The court allowed an employment appeal, found the worker protected under section 37, rejected the employer’s abscondment case, and held the termination unfair.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed an appeal challenging a redundancy-based termination, finding notice, consultation, and no proved discrimination.
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.
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.
The court found the appellant was unfairly terminated when the respondent ended his employment over project completion without complying with statutory safeguards.
The court held that the termination was unfair because the employer’s operational shutdown amounted to redundancy without compliance with statutory procedure.
Sheikh v Motrex Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 245 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 783 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
Court
Magistrate's Court
Case number
Employment and Labour Relations Cause 245 of 2019
Judge
["EM Mwamuye"]
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
Unfair termination
Procedural fairness under section 41
Substantive justification for dismissal
Gross misconduct by security guard sleeping on duty
Mithika v Manpower Networks Ltd (Environment and Land Case E601 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 809 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
Court
Magistrate's Court
Case number
Environment and Land Case E601 of 2025
Judge
["EM Mwamuye"]
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…