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
Mwololo v Sana Industries Company Limited (Appeal E215 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2445 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court allowed an employment appeal, found the worker protected under section 37, rejected the employer’s abscondment case, and held the termination unfair.
Keya v Crescent Tech Ltd (Appeal E154 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2435 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed an appeal challenging a redundancy-based termination, finding notice, consultation, and no proved discrimination.
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.
Cheva v Pan Africa Logistics Limited (Environment and Land Case E298 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 811 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Court found that although the Respondent proved financial difficulty, it did not prove that the Claimant’s particular role had become redundant in September 2023, nor did it show a fresh redundancy process, fresh notice, Labour Officer notice, or contemporaneous consultation proximate to the actual termination. The 2021 redundancy exercise had been overtaken by continued employment, unpaid leave, and recall to work. The termination was therefore substantively and procedurally unfair under sections 40 and 45 of the Employment Act. The Claimant was awarded severance, admitted outstanding gr…
Source excerpt
Nyachieo & 9 others v Kenya Orient Insurance Ltd (Cause 179 of 2019) [2026] KEELRC 2423 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Respondent proved a genuine redundancy based on restructuring, automation and business efficiency, and the consultation and notification requirements under section 40 were substantially met for all Claimants except the 4th Claimant. The 4th Claimant, who was on maternity leave, was excluded from the consultation process and that exclusion amounted to direct discrimination; she was therefore entitled to compensation equal to three months' gross salary.
Source excerpt
Colnet Limited v Sibolo & 135 others (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E443 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2350 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant established sufficient grounds for a conditional stay: the application was prompt, the appeal raised arguable issues, and execution against 105 individual former employees posed a real risk of substantial loss because restitution would be difficult if the appeal succeeded. Although the applicant failed to propose specific security, the court exercised its discretion to impose a proportionate condition requiring deposit of 30% of the decretal sum in a joint interest-bearing account or into court within 60 days.
Source excerpt
Sidhu v Canaan Factories Ltd (Cause E253 of 2023) [2026] KEELRC 2263 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the Claimant did not leave through mutual agreement; the Respondent’s evidence on that point was hearsay. The court accepted that the Respondent had financial challenges amounting to a valid substantive ground for redundancy, but found the Respondent ignored the mandatory procedure under section 40 of the Employment Act. That procedural breach rendered the termination unfair and unlawful under section 45.
Source excerpt
Oongo v Meds Maisha Kenya Ltd (Cause E070 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2269 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
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
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)
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
Kahindi v Afrika Pearl Hotel Limited (Formerly Trading as African Safari Diani Adventure) & another (Cause E015 of 2021) [2026] KEELRC 2235 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The claimant's final proven contract was a fixed-term contract that expired on 30 April 2020, so no subsisting employment relationship existed on 17 June 2020 and no unfair termination, redundancy or sickness-based discrimination was proved. The 2nd respondent was not the claimant's employer and no legal basis was established to transfer the 1st respondent's liabilities to it. Only unpaid April 2020 salary and a certificate of service were proved against the 1st respondent.
Source excerpt
Explore more
