Njeru v Banda Homes Limited (Cause E489 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1324 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employee lost claims of Kshs. 2.7 million in unpaid salary and unfair dismissal because he could not prove his case in court.
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 parties were in a contract of service
- 2.Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair
- 3.Whether the respondent owes the claimant unpaid salary arrears of Kshs. 2,700,000/-
- 4.Whether the claimant is bound by the car loan contract over motor vehicle KCT 575A and whether a set-off arises
- 5.Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Unfair/constructive dismissal
Termination was not unfair; the claimant absconded and offered no evidence of constructive dismissal
The claimant alleged that nine months of unpaid salary amounted to constructive dismissal. The Court found the claimant gave no evidence to establish the alleged unfair termination, while the respondent's witness testified under oath that during COVID-19 employees worked from home and the claimant disappeared never to resume work. The respondent's case was accordingly upheld and the compensation claim failed.
Unpaid salary arrears
No unpaid salaries were proved; payment was partly commission-based and no evidence of nine months of work without pay
The respondent's witness confirmed by evidence that the claimant was not owed money as claimed, having been paid on commission rather than salary. The claimant offered no evidence that he worked for nine months prior to leaving in December 2020. The claim for salary arrears of Kshs. 2,700,000/- therefore failed for want of proof.
Car loan contract and set-off
The claimant remains bound by the car loan contract; no set-off arises because no employment dues were proved
The claimant sought a set-off of the outstanding car loan balance of Kshs. 400,000/- against alleged salary arrears and transfer of the vehicle. The Court held the claimant was bound by the car loan contract providing for salary deductions until full payment. Since no employment dues were proved, there was no sum against which the set-off could operate, and the vehicle transfer relief fell away.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging unfair termination bears the evidential burden of proving it; where the claimant offers no evidence of unfair termination but the respondent's witness establishes desertion, the claim fails.
- A claim of constructive dismissal based on unpaid salary requires evidence that the employee actually worked and was not paid for the period claimed.
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Relief refused
#Unpaid salary arrears of Kshs. 2,700,000/- with interest
No evidence offered that the claimant worked and deserved to be paid for nine months; respondent's witness confirmed he was not owed money as claimed
General damages for unfair dismissal
The claimant failed to offer evidence of unfair termination; respondent's witness testified he absconded duty
Set-off of Kshs. 400,000/- car loan balance against alleged unpaid salary
The claimant is bound by the car loan contract and did not prove any dues from which a set-off could arise
Transfer of motor vehicle KCT 575A to the claimant
Follows from failure of the set-off and unpaid salary claims; the claimant remains bound by the car loan contract
Costs
The suit is dismissed with costs (costs awarded to 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.
In conclusion the suit is hereby dismissed with costs.
His claims of unfair termination and compensation must fail.
The claimant has not shown by evidence that the respondent owes him dues fiowing from the employment relationship from which the outstanding car loan said to be Kshs.400,000.00 can be paid out as a set ofi.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment appears to skip an express answer to the 3rd issue (it answers the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th issues without stating the 3rd).
Recurring typographical rendering of 'offer' and 'set-off' as 'ofier' and 'set ofi' in the judgment text.
The judgment does not state the names of the parties, the case number, or the issues as framed in a list; the issues are only referenced by number.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njeru v Banda Homes Limited (Cause E489 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1324 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1324/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.