Hahanyu v China Wu Yi Company Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E031 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2260 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan lorry driver lost his unfair termination appeal because he could not prove he was dismissed rather than resigning voluntarily.
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 appellant resigned from employment or was dismissed by the respondent
- 2.If terminated, whether the termination was unfair and unlawful
- 3.Whether the appellant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the appellant resigned or was dismissed
The appellant voluntarily resigned on 11th June 2022; he failed to prove dismissal as he produced no termination letter, called no eyewitness, and never protested to the HR manager.
The court assessed the conduct of the appellant, noting inconsistency with a person unlawfully stopped from working. He also lied under oath about receiving only one warning letter when two were proved, undermining his credibility. Burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act rested on the appellant, and he did not discharge it on a balance of probability.
Effect of the signed discharge voucher/acknowledgement
The appellant voluntarily signed an acknowledgement waiving claims for notice, NHIF, NSSF, PAYE and compensation for injury or medication, but did not waive a claim for compensation for unfair termination.
The appellant did not plead incapacity or involuntariness when signing the document. Applying the doctrine of waiver as defined in Serah Njeri Mwobi v John Kimani Njoroge, the acknowledgement was an unequivocal representation but did not list unfair termination compensation among the waived claims. However, the unfair termination claim failed anyway because the appellant resigned voluntarily.
Whether the claim for compensation for unfair termination was tenable
It was untenable because the appellant voluntarily resigned; there was no termination to found a claim under section 41 of the Employment Act.
Having found as a fact that the appellant resigned and was not dismissed, no question of valid reason or fair procedure under section 41 arose. The discharge voucher point was academic since the underlying claim of unfair termination had already failed on the finding of voluntary resignation.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal the court must re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.
- The burden of proving dismissal lies on the employee who alleges it, on a balance of probability.
- A waiver of rights requires an unequivocal representation of intention, and a discharge voucher acknowledging receipt of dues does not necessarily waive a claim for compensation for unfair termination unless expressly listed.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs
- 2.Judgment delivered via Teams video conferencing with consent of parties, waiving compliance with Rule 28(3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (ELRC subordinate court)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the trial magistrate's court pursuant to the court's appellate mandate; ELRC Procedure Rules referred to
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the trial court's judgment and substitution with an award of Kshs. 619,394 for wrongful, unfair and unlawful termination
Appellant failed to prove dismissal on a balance of probability; he voluntarily resigned; the discharge voucher was voluntarily signed though it did not waive the unfair termination claim
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs 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.
Consequently, I find no merits in the appeal herein and dismiss it with costs.
I find that the appellant did not prove on a balance of probability that he was dismissed by the respondent but instead hold that he voluntarily left his job on 11th June 2022.
However, he never waived the claim for compensation for unlawful and unfair termination of his employment.
for a waiver of rights to sufice, there has to be an unequivocal representation of the intention.
Issues in the judgment
#The relief sought is stated as Kshs. 619,394 in the appeal grounds but as Kshs. 618,394 in the factual background, an apparent typographical discrepancy.
The judgment repeatedly confuses the parties in framing the issues, asking 'Whether the respondent resigned from employment or he was dismissed by the appellant' - roles are reversed; similarly 'the appellant was employed by the respondent as a Driver from June 2021'.
The Court of Appeal is mentioned in the quoted Selle passage while this is a first appeal to the ELRC from a magistrate's court; the citation is applied by analogy.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hahanyu v China Wu Yi Company Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E031 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2260 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Appeal dated 7th October 2024 (ELRC, Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2260/eng@2025-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.