Makokha & another v Buckram Security Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E584 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 66 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan security firm that couldn't prove how it ended employment or that it paid wages was ordered to pay two guards over Kshs 500,000 combined.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Unlawful termination of employment
Termination was unlawful because the Respondent admitted the employment relationship but led no evidence of the manner of termination or proof of payment
The Respondent admitted employing the Claimants but only casually denied the claims of non-payment and gave no proof of the payments or of how the engagement ended. With no evidence of the manner in which the relationship was terminated, the court accepted the Claimants' own account that they were unlawfully terminated, and found for them on liability.
Quantum of compensation for unlawful termination
Three months' salary awarded as compensation instead of the 12 months sought, taking into account the short 7-month period of engagement
Although the Claimants sought the maximum 12 months' compensation under Section 49 of the Employment Act, the court limited compensation to 3 months' salary (Kshs 27,000 each), expressly citing the short time of engagement (October 2021 to May 2022, approximately 7 months).
Underpayment contrary to wage regulation orders
Respondent directed to pay the difference between Kshs 9,000 paid and the prescribed minimum wages of Kshs 13,512.90 (day guard) and Kshs 15,141.95 (night guard) under the 2018 wages regulation
The Claimants were paid Kshs 9,000 monthly contrary to the minimum wage prescribed by the Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order 2018 for security guards. The court awarded the underpayment differential of Kshs 105,930 for the 1st Claimant and Kshs 127,960 for the 2nd Claimant.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employer admits an employment relationship but produces no evidence of how it was terminated or of payment of salaries, the employee's account of unlawful termination is accepted
Court orders
#- 1.1 month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 9,000/- to each Claimant
- 2.3 months' salary as compensation for unlawful termination (Kshs 27,000) to each Claimant given the short period of engagement
- 3.Payment of 4 months' unpaid salary of Kshs 36,000/- to each Claimant
- 4.Underpayment of salaries awarded at Kshs 105,930 (1st Claimant) and Kshs 127,960 (2nd Claimant)
- 5.House allowance awarded as prayed at Kshs 60,210 and Kshs 66,545.5 respectively
- 6.Totals: 1st Claimant Kshs 238,140/- and 2nd Claimant Kshs 266,505.5/- each less statutory deductions
- 7.Claimants to be issued with a certificate of service
- 8.Respondents to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 and ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016 as invoked in the Statement of Claim; judgment does not cite a specific jurisdictional provision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Makokha & another v Buckram Security Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E584 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 66 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/66/eng@2025-01-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.