Nyaboga v Central Electricals Company Limited & another (Cause 581 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 160 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan engineer won on unfair termination but lost everything because he had signed a full-and-final settlement discharge after taking his final dues.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Claimant was a regular Employee of the Respondents
- 2.Whether the Respondents terminated his contract fairly, lawfully or at all
- 3.Whether he executed a valid discharge
- 4.Whether he merits the prayers sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was a regular employee
Yes - he completed probation and was confirmed as a regular employee
Although employed orally and without a written contract, it was common ground that the Claimant served 3 months' probation successfully and was retained for a further 5 months, working 8 months in total. The court rejected the Respondents' assertion of monthly periodic engagements, holding that confirmation at the end of probation conferred full statutory protections.
Whether termination was fair and lawful
Termination was unfair and unlawful
Both parties agreed termination was at the Respondents' instigation without notice. The Respondents failed to prove the asserted reason - completion of the Two Rivers project - and did not follow the minimum standards of fairness under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act. The reason was not established under Sections 43 and 45.
Whether the discharge was valid
Yes - the discharge was voluntary and binding
The Claimant, an educated engineer, accepted Kshs. 98,680 as full and final settlement and discharged the Respondents without expressing compulsion in his pleadings or witness statement. Applying Coastal Bottlers v. Kimathi Mithika, the discharge barred all claims, including compensation for unfair termination. His claim that he needed money for hospital bills was unsupported.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who completes probation becomes a regular employee entitled to full protections under the Employment Act 2007
- A voluntarily executed full-and-final settlement discharge is a valid and binding agreement
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is declined
- 2.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Employment Act 2007
Relief refused
#Compensation for unfair termination at Kshs. 1,080,000
Covered by the valid discharge executed by the Claimant
3 months' notice pay at Kshs. 270,000
Covered by the discharge; no contract establishing a 3-month notice period
Severance pay at Kshs. 45,000
No redundancy was pleaded; claim has no foundation
Medical expenses at Kshs. 150,000
No liability imposed on employers under the N.H.I.F Act or Employment Act to meet employees' medical expenses
Vehicle overhaul at Kshs. 250,000
No evidence the Respondents required use of his own vehicle or promised servicing
'Disturbances' at Kshs. 1,080,000 and general damages
No provision for 'disturbances' in the Employment Act or contract
Costs
No order on the costs - each party to bear their own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Once probation was over, the Claimant became a regular Employee of the Respondents, entitled to the full guarantees and protections, under the Employment Act 2007.
Termination would therefore be deemed unfair and unlawful under the above provisions of the law.
The discharge was executed voluntarily and constitutes a valid agreement, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal, in Coastal Bottlers v. Kimathi Mithika [2018] e-KLR.
The N.H.I.F Act, does not impose any liability on non-compliant Employers, to meet the medical expenses of their Employees.
It is ordered: a. The Claim is declined. b. No order on the costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyaboga v Central Electricals Company Limited & another (Cause 581 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 160 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as extracted. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/160/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.