Atuga v Siafee Chemicals Limited (Cause 510 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2200 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer couldn't prove an employee deserted his job and was ordered to pay him over Kshs. 332,000 plus costs.
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 has proved a case of unlawful termination of employment
- 2.The impact of occupational disease on the Claimant
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Whether termination on the ground of desertion was proved
The desertion defence failed because the Respondent adduced no evidence of efforts to reach the Claimant; termination was therefore unlawful and unfair
The court adopted the Seabolo distinction between desertion and absence without leave and the rule that an employer must demonstrate efforts to have the employee resume duty and issue notice of contemplated termination. With no evidence of such effort, the defence crumbled and the Claimant's uncontroverted account of termination after falling ill at work stood.
Compensation for unlawful termination
Six months' salary awarded, considering length of service, non-contribution, and denial of a hearing
The court exercised its discretion under settled ELRC practice, taking into account the Claimant's length of service, his lack of contribution to the termination, and the Respondent's failure to avail him an opportunity to be heard before termination, and awarded the equivalent of six months' gross salary.
Quantum for occupational eye injury
Kshs. 200,000 general damages awarded, applying comparable eye-injury awards adjusted for inflation and the agreed 25% contributory negligence
Guided by Kigaragari v Aya on consistency of awards, the court found the injuries similar to those in P.J. Dave Flowers (Kshs. 180,000 for eye injury with photophobia). It factored in inflation and the consent apportionment of 25% contributory negligence against the Claimant to arrive at Kshs. 200,000.
Effect of the consent on liability apportionment
The consent settling liability at 25% (Claimant) and 75% (Respondent) removed the need to determine liability; the court proceeded to quantum
By the consent recorded on 2nd April 2025, the parties agreed apportionment of liability for the work injury. The court accordingly sidestepped the liability question and determined only quantum, taking the agreed apportionment into account.
Legal principles established
#- An employer alleging desertion must demonstrate efforts to reach the employee and put them on notice that termination on account of desertion is contemplated
- Desertion is distinguishable from absence without leave by the intention not to return
Court orders
#- 1.Six months' salary in compensation for unlawful termination of Kshs. 105,000
- 2.One month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 17,500
- 3.General damages of Kshs. 200,000 for the occupational eye injury, subject to 25% contributory negligence apportionment
- 4.Special damages of Kshs. 9,580
- 5.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 6.Certificate of service to be issued to the Claimant
- 7.Costs of the case to the Claimant
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
#Claimed general damages of Kshs. 400,000 for the injury
The court instead applied comparable awards in P.J. Dave Flowers, adjusted for inflation and the agreed 25% contributory negligence
Costs
The Claimant is entitled to costs of the case
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.
Not every unauthorised absence from work translates to desertion of duty.
The defence that the Claimant himself deserted duty therefore crumbles.
Finally, I enter judgment in favour of the Claimant as follows:
a. 6 months' salary in compensation………………………..Kshs. 105,000
This amount will attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full.
The Claimant is also entitled to a certificate of service plus costs of the case.
Issues in the judgment
#Recurrent typographical error rendering 'efforts', 'affected' and 'suffered' as 'efiorts', 'afiected' and 'sufiered' throughout the text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Atuga v Siafee Chemicals Limited (Cause 510 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2200 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2200/eng@2025-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.