Security Alert Services Limited v Kebuko (Appeal E114 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 333 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that employers who skip written contracts and proper termination process will pay, and a discharge note won't shield them.
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 respondent worked for the appellant continuously for 8 years or in two separate contracts punctuated by resignations
- 2.Whether the Discharge Note dated 11 February 2021 evidencing mutual separation bars the respondent's claims
- 3.Whether termination of the respondent's employment was unfair for want of notice, reasons and due process
- 4.Which of the respondent's claims for terminal dues (notice pay, compensation, house allowance, overtime, rest days, underpayment) were payable and within the limitation period
Key legal issues
#Continuity of employment and duration of service
The respondent worked continuously for 8 years from 1 March 2014; the alleged resignations were not proved and no termination notices were attached
The appellant asserted two contracts each ending with resignation, but no resignation notices were attached. Employment commenced February/March 2014 with no letter of resignation or termination. The Discharge Note's admission of Ksh.3,500 terminal dues confirmed employment. The court found the trial magistrate's finding of 8 years of service correct.
Effect of the Discharge Note / mutual separation agreement
The Discharge Note could not discharge the appellant from lawful claims, including the right to dispute fairness of termination under Section 35(4)
Section 35(4) preserves the employee's right to dispute the lawfulness or fairness of termination. The note must be given context and does not remove the employee's right to claim lawfully denied employment benefits; the admission of terminal dues confirmed employment.
Fairness of termination
Termination was unfair: no written reasons, no due process, and the employer failed to bring closure after alleged abandonment
Absence from work without permission is gross misconduct under Section 44, requiring the employer to issue notice to the employee to respond, and to terminate with notice copied to the Labour Office under Section 18(5)(b). The appellant did neither, so employment terminated unfairly without valid reason.
Limitation on continuing-injury claims
House allowance and overtime claims are continuing injuries claimable only within 12 months of cessation; the claim filed on 30 June 2021 was in time
Section 89 of the Employment Act limits claims to 12 months for continuing injuries. The respondent was terminated after leave in July 2020 and issued a Discharge Note on 11 February 2021; the claim filed 30 June 2021 fell within the 12-month window for the continuing-injury heads.
Legal principles established
#- It is the legal duty of the employer to issue a written contract of employment; failure to do so exposes the employer and obliges the court to rely on the employee's word
- Continuous employment without a written agreement converts a casual employee to a permanent employee protected under Section 37 of the Employment Act
- A mutual separation or discharge note cannot bar an employee's lawful claims arising from unfair termination
- An employee who absconds or abandons employment does not dismiss herself; the employer must formally end the employment relationship with notice and due process
- Claims based on continuing injuries (house allowance, overtime) must be filed within 12 months of cessation of employment under Section 89 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Declared that the employment of the respondent by the appellant was terminated unfairly
- 2.Compensation Ksh.162,874.80
- 3.Notice pay Ksh.13,872.90
- 4.Overtime Ksh.121,672
- 5.Rest days Ksh.5,822.40
- 6.House allowances Ksh.24,431.22
- 7.Costs of the trial court as awarded
- 8.The appellant is to meet 25% of the costs for the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Mombasa (ELRC)
- CM ELRC No.424 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the magistrates' court under the Employment Act and ELRC procedural framework
Relief refused
#Underpayments claim
The respondent did not particularise the various years and what was paid from 2014; the last wage paid was in line with the Wage Orders and house allowance was dealt with separately
Unparticularised portion of continuing-injury claims beyond 12 months
Claims for house allowance and overtime are continuing injuries actionable only within 12 months of cessation under Section 89 of the Employment Act
Costs
Costs of the trial court as awarded; the appellant to meet 25% of the costs for the respondent.
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.
Accordingly, as analyzed above, the judgment in Mombasa CMELRC No.424 of 2021 is hereby reviewed in the following terms;
The employment of the respondent by the appellant was terminated unfairly;
The appellant is to meet 25% of the costs for the respondent.
It is the legal duty of the employer to issue the employee with a written contract of employment stating the terms and conditions of employment as required under Section 10(3) of the Employment Act.
the employee who deserts, absconds or abandons her employment does not dismiss herself. The decision to formally end the employment relationship should come from the innocent party, the employer.
Issues in the judgment
#Notice pay awarded in the trial judgment is recorded as Ksh.13,872.88 but the final orders record Ksh.13,872.90
The appellant's response states the respondent applied for the position on 12 February 2024, an apparent error for 2014 given the pleaded deployment date of 3 March 2014
The trial award figure of Ksh.352,190.80 for underpayments is reproduced with the typographical error 'Underlayment'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Aron v Bokhol Transporters Limited (Appeal E185 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 805 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 805 (KLR)13 Mar 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Security Alert Services Limited v Kebuko (Appeal E114 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 333 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Mombasa ELRC Appeal (from CM ELRC No.424 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/333/eng@2025-02-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.