Tito v Nirma Holdings Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 531 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1766 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employee's dismissal without evidence of a show-cause notice was unfair, awarding him Kshs. 366,000.
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 engaged as a casual employee
- 2.Whether due process was followed before dismissing the Claimant
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the prayers sought
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Status of employment - casual versus permanent employee
The NSSF remittances established that the Claimant worked continuously for the Respondent, so he was not a casual employee.
The court examined the Claimant's NSSF statement produced in evidence, which showed the Respondent remitted contributions in 2014 and 2015, evidencing continuous employment. Although the exact date of first engagement was unclear, the remittances established continuous service, defeating the Respondent's claim of broken casual engagements. The Respondent called no evidence to counter this.
Whether the termination was fair and justified
The termination was unfair and unjustified under section 45(2) of the Employment Act.
The Respondent alleged the Claimant absconded duty in January 2017 but produced no evidence of attempts to trace him or issue a notice to show cause. The circumstances of the termination were unclear and there was no evidence of any disciplinary hearing. The employer therefore failed to prove a valid reason and a fair procedure as required by section 45(2).
Legal principles established
#- An employer who alleges that an employee absconded duty must prove that it sought the employee out and issued a notice to show cause before dismissal; absent such proof, the allegation has no basis.
- A termination without valid reason and without a disciplinary hearing is unfair and unjustified under section 45(2) of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Payment of 1 month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 15,000)
- 2.Payment of leave for the last year of service not taken (Kshs. 15,000)
- 3.Payment of house allowance not paid for the duration of service (15% of 15,000 x 12 months x 8 years = Kshs. 216,000)
- 4.Payment of 8 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination (8 x 15,000 = Kshs. 120,000)
- 5.Total award of Kshs. 366,000 less statutory deductions
- 6.Respondents to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over employment and labour relations claims (Employment Act; Article 41 of the Constitution invoked in submissions)
Relief refused
#Terminal benefits and compensatory damages totalling Kshs. 949,000 as sought
The court awarded a lower quantified sum of Kshs. 366,000 rather than the full amount claimed
Interest on the decretal amount from the date of filing
Interest was awarded only from the date of judgment, not from filing
Costs
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment
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.
The respondents have not submitted any evidence that they tried to seek him out and even issued him with a notice to show cause to explain why he should not be dismissed for absconding duty. The argument that he absconded duty therefore has no basis.
It is therefore my finding that the termination was unfair and unjustified as per section 45(2) of the Employment Act
1 months' salary in lieu of notice = 15,000/-
House allowance not paid for the duration of service = 15% of 15,000x 12 months x 8 years = 216,000/-
8 months' salary as compensation for the unfair termination = 8x15,000 = 120,000/-
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, court name or coram beyond the judge's signature block; parties are referred to only as Claimant and Respondent.
The Respondent is described inconsistently in singular and plural within the judgment.
The dismissal is alleged in the pleadings to have occurred after service on 21st January 2017, but the court's analysis places dismissal in relation to events in 2017 without resolving the exact date.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tito v Nirma Holdings Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 531 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1766 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1766/eng@2025-06-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.