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
Kasanduku v Chege (Appeal E227 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2436 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed the appeal because the Record of Appeal omitted the trial judgment and decree, making the appeal incompetent.
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
Shuga v Registered Trustees of the Salvation Army Likoni Corps (Cause E143 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 476 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
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
Winguards Services Ltd v Nyaata (Civil Appeal E217 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2258 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded only in part because the Appellant failed to prove desertion, any valid reason for termination, or compliance with procedural fairness, so unfair termination, notice pay, leave pay, underpayment and compensation were upheld; however, the trial court erred in fabricating an overtime quantum not pleaded or proved and in awarding house allowance contrary to the signed consolidated gross salary clause, so those two awards were set aside.
Source excerpt
Joseph v Wonder Feeds Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E256 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 398 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The claimant failed to prove that the respondent terminated his employment; the evidence showed successive fixed-term contracts that expired by effluxion of time. Because no unlawful termination was established, the compensation claim failed. The claimant also failed to strictly prove underpayment, overtime, leave denial, and public holiday work. The suit was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Mangale v Professional Clean Care Ltd (Cause E570 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 468 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Respondent effectively terminated the Claimant by removing him from duty, ceasing to provide work, and placing him on indefinite unpaid leave without a definite recall or redeployment date. That action was unsupported by a lawful procedure: no notice to show cause, disciplinary hearing, or section 41 protections were shown. Although client complaints provided a factual basis for administrative action, the Respondent failed to prove a valid and fair reason for indefinitely withholding work and wages. The termination was therefore unfair, warranting notice pay, accrued leave and partial com…
Source excerpt
Ogada v Ndeche & another t/a Frikas Lounge and Grill (Cause E019 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2327 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that it had jurisdiction, because ELRC’s original jurisdiction remained intact notwithstanding the wage threshold applicable to designated magistrates. On the merits, the claimant failed to prove he was ever qualified or appointed as an accountant, so he remained a waiter throughout. Applying the relevant wage orders for the applicable periods, and relying on the respondents’ failure to produce records, the court found underpayment, annual leave entitlement, and limited public holiday work proved only to the extent specifically pleaded and supported. The court therefore awarded…
Source excerpt
SGA Security Solutions Limited v Wanjiru (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E194 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2046 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded only on underpayment. The court held that the employer proved neither substantive justification nor fair procedure for the dismissal because the intoxication allegation was unsupported by direct evidence, the disciplinary process was not reliably authenticated, the documents were internally inconsistent, and there was no proof of proper notice under section 41. The awards for notice pay, house allowance and compensation were upheld, but the underpayment claim failed for want of pleaded and proved wage-order evidence. The trial court's judgment was therefore varied downwar…
Source excerpt
Lavington Security Guards Ltd v Maroa (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E319 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1998 (KLR) (15 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the appellant did not prove the alleged reasons for dismissal, the respondent was not accorded the mandatory disciplinary hearing required by section 41, and the trial court’s awards were supported by the evidence and the governing statutory framework. The appellate court therefore upheld the trial court in full.
Source excerpt
Wafula v Marshalls Security Group Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E056 of 2020) [2026] KEELRC 1906 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court found, on re-evaluation of the record, that the appellant had likely been given four off days and failed to return to duty, so the respondent had a valid substantive reason based on absconding. However, the respondent did not issue a warning or otherwise notify the appellant of its intention to terminate employment, despite having his contact details, and therefore failed the procedural fairness requirement under section 41. The trial court was thus wrong to dismiss the claim entirely. Only the claim for notice pay was supported as compensation for procedural unfairness; the other m…
Source excerpt
Explore more
