Waita v Imara Steel Mills Ltd (Appeal E066 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2456 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court upheld a finding that a worker resigned voluntarily, telling employees they must prove coercion with evidence, not contradictions.
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 learned trial magistrate erred in holding that the appellant was a casual employee
- 2.Whether the trial magistrate erred in finding that the appellant resigned voluntarily
- 3.Whether the appellant had not testified in regard to the alleged resignation
- 4.Whether the trial magistrate erred in holding that the appellant had been paid his terminal dues
- 5.Whether the appellate court should disturb the findings of the trial court
Key legal issues
#Principles governing first appellate interference with trial court findings
An appeal from the magistrate's court is by way of retrial, but the appellate court will not interfere where the trial decision is a reasonable deduction from the evidence.
Relying on Gitobu Imanyara v Attorney General, the court restated that it must reconsider and evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses. However, it must guard against whimsically substituting its own view for that of the trial court; a need not be perfect decision based on preponderance of evidence will stand.
Voluntary resignation versus constructive dismissal
The trial court correctly found that the appellant resigned voluntarily, received his terminal dues, and did not testify on the circumstances of the resignation; the claim of constructive dismissal failed for want of proof.
The trial magistrate observed that the appellant did not testify on the circumstances leading to his resignation, that he resigned and received terminal dues, and that no allegation of coercion on the discharge voucher was made. The appellant contradicted himself by denying the resignation letter while claiming coercion in respect of the same letter, and failed to discharge the burden of proof.
Burden of proof
The legal burden rests on the person who alleges; the appellant failed to discharge it.
The court adopted the principle in sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act and the Supreme Court's exposition in Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji: the person who makes an allegation bears the initial legal burden which must be discharged, while the evidential burden is a shifting one. The appellant, who alleged constructive dismissal and non-payment, did not discharge that burden before the trial court.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's finding which is in line with the operative law and a reasonable deduction of the evidence, merely because it could itself have reached a different view.
- A party cannot approbate and reprobate - deny authorship of a resignation letter yet simultaneously claim coercion in signing it.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is found without merit and is dismissed with 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 Kajiado
- CMEL No. 11 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Chief Magistrate's Court (ELRC), appeal by way of retrial
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the judgment and decree of the Chief Magistrate's Court and judgment on unfair and unlawful termination with reliefs
The appellant failed to present sufficient grounds to warrant disturbing the trial court's findings
Costs
The appeal is dismissed with costs (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.
The appeal is therefore found without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
It is so ordered.
The Court is therefore not persuaded that the appellant has presented suficient grounds to warrant disturbing the finding of the trial court which in the court’s view was based on the preponderance of the evidence presented before it.
Besides it is not permissible for the appellant to breath hot and cold at the same time.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's numbered paragraphs 1 and 2 appear before paragraph 2's text and are blank, indicating a formatting/drafting defect in the record.
Counsel for the respondent is referred to as Mr. Maina in the submissions, but the following sentence attributes submissions to 'Mr, Ngige', the appellant's counsel, apparently an error.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Waita v Imara Steel Mills Ltd (Appeal E066 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2456 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Appeal against judgment in CMEL No. 11 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2456/eng@2025-09-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.