Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedJudgment dated 27th June 2025; Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court at Nairobi, CMEL NO. E773 of 2022

Kahindi v Pioneer Vision Group Africa Ltd (Appeal E177 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1965 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 June 2025
1,732 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that employees claiming unfair termination must prove it with evidence—without a termination letter, the claim fails.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court against the judgment of Hon. B. Cheloti (PM) delivered on 18th August 2023 in Nairobi CMEL No. E773 of 2022, in which the appellant's suit for terminal dues and compensation of Kshs. 1,048,690 for alleged unfair termination was dismissed. The appellant alleged he was terminated on 19th January 2022 without notice or hearing, contrary to section 41 of the Employment Act, contending that the compulsory leave letter bore no indication of receipt and that text messages were unproven. The respondent maintained that the appellant was sent on seven days' compulsory leave, was expected to resume on 26th January 2022, failed to do so, and thus deserted his employment; no termination occurred. The appeal was disposed of by written submissions. Guided by Gitobu Imanyara & 2 Others v Attorney General on the retrial function of a first appellate court, the Court reviewed the evidence. It noted that under section 47(5) of the Employment Act the burdens of proving unfair termination (employee) and reasons for termination (employer) are mutually exclusive. The appellant produced no termination letter, whereas the respondent produced the compulsory leave letter dated the very date the appellant claimed termination, and text messages sent to a number the appellant did not deny was his. The trial court had the advantage of observing the parties' demeanour and its judgment was found sound in law. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The Court noted the trial court had already ordered payment for 19 days worked, remaining leave days and a certificate of service.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the respondent terminated the appellant's service or the appellant deserted duty
  2. 2.Whether the trial court's judgment that the appellant was not terminated was sound in law

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the appellant's service was terminated or he deserted duty

Holding

The trial court's finding that the appellant was not terminated was sound; the appellant produced no termination letter while the respondent produced a compulsory leave letter dated the same date

Reasoning

The respondent produced a suspension/compulsory leave letter dated 19th January 2022 requiring resumption on 26th January 2022, and text messages to the appellant's mobile number, which the appellant did not deny receiving on that number. The appellant, who alleged termination on 19th January 2022, produced no termination letter. The trial court, having heard and observed the parties' demeanour, found the respondent had discharged its burden while the appellant had not. On review, this Court was persuaded the judgment was sound in law and declined to disturb it.

p. 4
02

The appellate standard of review on evidence

Holding

As a first appellate court, the Court must reconsider the evidence and draw its own conclusions subject to the absence of advantage of seeing witnesses

Reasoning

Relying on Gitobu Imanyara & 2 Others v Attorney General, the Court restated that an appeal from a trial court is by way of retrial: the appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence itself and draw its own conclusions, always bearing in mind that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses and should make due allowance for that disadvantage.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Under section 47(5) of the Employment Act, the burden of proving unfair termination is on the employee and the burden of proving reasons for termination is on the employer, and these burdens are mutually exclusive
  • A first appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Nairobi
CMEL NO. E773 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over appeals from the magistrates' court in employment matters

Relief refused

#

Setting aside of the trial court's judgment and decree

The Court found the trial judgment sound in law

p. 4

Terminal dues and compensation of Kshs. 1,048,690

The appellant failed to prove unfair termination; the burden under section 47(5) was not discharged

p. 4

Costs

Dismissed with no order as to 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.

In conclusion, the Appeal is found without merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
p. 4Final orders
It is so ordered.
p. 4Final orders
The Court has carefully reviewed the evidence vis-à-vis the judgment of the trial court and is persuaded that it is sound in law. The Court will therefore not disturb the same.
p. 4Appellate review of trial court findings

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment inconsistently dates the events as January 2022 while the memorandum of appeal grounds refer to a letter dated 19th January 2023 and messages of 26th and 27th January 2023

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kahindi v Pioneer Vision Group Africa Ltd (Appeal E177 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1965 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judgment dated 27th June 2025; Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court at Nairobi, CMEL NO. E773 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1965/eng@2025-06-27

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.