Richard v Haggai Mulitcargo Handling Services Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 115 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2515 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was substance (valid reason) in terminating the Claimant's employment
- 2.Whether the termination was procedurally fair
- 3.Whether the Claimant's prayers should be granted together with costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was substantively and procedurally unfair
The termination was unfair: the Respondent did not appear, offered no justification, and there was no indication the Claimant was heard or given notice before dismissal.
The Claimant testified he was dismissed verbally after returning from resolving a personal debt matter, without notice, reasons or a disciplinary hearing. The Respondent was served but never entered appearance or filed a response, leaving the claim uncontroverted. Under sections 41, 44 and 45 of the Employment Act, the employer must justify both the reason for dismissal and procedural fairness; failure to do so renders termination unfair, entitling the Claimant to notice pay and compensatory damages.
Burden of proof in unfair termination claims
The employee bears the initial burden of proving unfair termination, after which the employer must justify the validity and procedural fairness of the termination.
Relying on section 47(5) of the Employment Act and the Court of Appeal decision in Kenya Revenue Authority v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi, the Claimant submitted that once the employee establishes the facts of termination, the employer must prove valid grounds and fair procedure. The Respondent's non-appearance meant it discharged no such burden, so the unchallenged evidence of the Claimant carried the day.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employer fails to enter appearance or file a response and the employee's evidence of termination without notice or hearing stands uncontroverted, the termination is substantively and procedurally unfair.
Court orders
#- 1.1 month salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 17,000/-
- 2.6 months' salary for wrongful termination of Kshs 102,000/- (17 x 6)
- 3.Untaken leave from 2015 of Kshs 17,000/-
- 4.Severance pay for 3 years computed as 1/2 x 17,000 x 3 = Kshs 25,500/-
- 5.Total award of Kshs 161,500/- less statutory deductions
- 6.Respondent 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
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes (unfair termination claim under the Employment Act)
Relief refused
#Formal declarations that the dismissal was unlawful and unfair and that the Claimant is entitled to terminal dues and compensatory damages
The court found for the Claimant and awarded the tabulated dues but did not expressly issue the declarations sought in prayers (a) and (b); it instead granted the monetary awards directly.
Costs
The respondent will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgement.
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.
I find for the claimant and award him as follows:1. 1 month salary in lieu of notice = kshs 17,000/-. 2. 6 months' salary for wrongful termination = 17x6= Kshs 102,000/- 3. Untaken leave from 2015= kshs 17,000/-. 4. Severance pay for 3 years= 1/2x17,000x3= kshs 25,500/- Total kshs 161,500/- less statutory deductions.
The evidence that the claimant was terminated in clear and there is no indication that he was given any opportunity to be heard before the dismissal. The claimant's case remain uncontroverted.
The respondent will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgement.
Issues in the judgment
#Internally inconsistent employment dates: the memorandum pleads employment from 15th October 2015 yet the claimant allegedly served until '31st November 2015' (a non-existent date), and CW1 testified he worked from January 2015 to November 2015.
Document dating discrepancy: the Memorandum of Claim is dated 10th January 2018 while the witness statement adopted is dated 10th December 2017.
Severance pay awarded for 3 years of service although the pleaded and testified period of employment was under one year (2015 only).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Richard v Haggai Mulitcargo Handling Services Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 115 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2515 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2515/eng@2025-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.