Massawa v Shop and Deliver Limited [2025] KEELRC 2137 (KLR)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Employment and Labour Relations Petition E207 of 2023
Judge
HS Wasilwa
The court found the employee’s dismissal unfair and discriminatory after an accident-related incapacity, holding that the employer breached fair hearing and procedure requirements.
Orori v Public Service Board – Kisii County Government & 2 others [2025] KEELRC 2008 (KLR)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Cause E096 of 2024
Judge
JK Gakeri
The court found that the respondents unilaterally varied the claimant's fixed-term employment contract without consultation or justification, in violation of Section 10(5) of the Employment Act. No valid or fair reason for termination was provided, and the respondents failed to substantiate allegations of fraud, contract expiry tied to the Governor's term, or retirement age. The respondents also failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under Section 41 of the Employment Act, including notice and hearing. The court held that the termination was both substantively and procedurall…
Mutugi & another v Career Readiness Social Initiative Ltd [2025] KEELRC 2002 (KLR)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Cause 646 of 2019
Judge
HS Wasilwa
The court held the claimants’ terminations were substantively and procedurally unfair and awarded compensation, notice pay, certificates of service, and costs.
Nuclear Investment Limited v Kinyanjui [2025] KEELRC 1998 (KLR)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Appeal E008 of 2023
Judge
AN Mwaure
The court upheld a finding of unfair termination, dismissed the appeal, and reduced the underpayment award to reflect the three-year limitation period.
Wareng High School v Sanga [2025] KEELRC 1968 (KLR)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Appeal E003 of 2023
Judge
MA Onyango
The ELRC at Eldoret allowed Wareng High School’s appeal in part, found the termination fair, and reduced the respondent’s monetary award to salary and underpayments only.
Mbuba v Aga Khan University [2025] KEELRC 1964 (KLR)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Cause 895 of 2017
Judge
NJ Abuodha
The court found that the claimant's contract of employment, as evidenced by the signed appointment letter, did in fact provide for a six-month probationary period, contrary to her assertions. The court further determined that the evaluation process was a standard requirement for confirmation of employment and that the claimant did not object to the process at the material time. The court noted that the parties had amicably resolved any contractual disputes, with the claimant serving her full contract term. As such, the court held that the claimant failed to demonstrate any stand-alone breach…
Mutua v Mars Security Guards Limited [2025] KEELRC 1832 (KLR)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E067 of 2024
Judge
JW Keli
The Employment and Labour Relations Court held that the appellant's termination was unfair, set aside the magistrate's judgment, and awarded notice pay, compensation, and a uniform refund.
Mukora v National Industrial Training Authority & another [2025] KEELRC 2007 (KLR)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Cause 32 of 2019
Judge
HS Wasilwa
The court found the claimant’s dismissal unfair for want of a properly constituted disciplinary process and awarded notice pay, compensation, pension and costs.
Mendi & another v Kenya Educational Trust Ltd t/a Pembrooke House [2025] KEELRC 1755 (KLR)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Cause E041 of 2022
Judge
AN Mwaure
The court found that the Respondent failed to provide clear and credible evidence to substantiate the reasons for the Claimants' termination. The disciplinary process lacked transparency, with no verifiable records or minutes of the hearing presented, and the evidence relied upon was not corroborated by independent statements from parents or students. The court held that both substantive justification and procedural fairness were not met, as required by the Employment Act and established case law. The court was not persuaded by the allegations of racial discrimination due to lack of substanti…