Namaemba v Consolidated Human Resource Solutions Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2631 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An employee claiming unfair dismissal in Kenya must produce the actual employment contract, because payslips alone cannot prove how the job ended.
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 Petitioner's termination of employment was unfair and wrongful
- 2.Whether the Petitioner's constitutional rights under Articles 27, 28, 29, 41, 43(1) and 47 were violated by the Respondent
- 3.Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any relief
Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioner proved the nature and termination of her employment contract
The petition failed because the Respondent's alleged fixed-term contracts were never produced and there was no evidence of how the engagement ended
The Respondent admitted employing the Petitioner but asserted her contract expired by effluxion of time on 28 February 2025. However, the contracts relied on were never exhibited before court; only payslips were produced. The Petitioner, who averred the employment relationship, bore the burden of proving its nature and how it ended. In the absence of that evidence, the court could not find an unfair termination or constitutional violation.
Burden of proof in the petition
The Petitioner, having alleged the employment relationship, bore the duty to prove it, and failed to discharge that burden
Although the Petitioner submitted that under section 43(1) of the Employment Act the employer bears the burden of proving the reason for termination, the court found the threshold question was proof of the employment relationship itself and its mode of termination. With no contract exhibited and conflicting accounts of the events of December 2024 to February 2025, the Petitioner did not prove her case to the required standard, so the petition failed.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging an employment relationship bears the duty to prove it
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition failed and was dismissed
- 2.No order of costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction invoked under Rule 10 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, Legal Notice 133 of 2024 on enforcement of constitutional rights
Relief refused
#Declaration that dismissal was wrongful, unlawful and unfair
In the absence of evidence as to the nature and end of the contract, the petition was not proved
One month's notice pay and allowance
Not established on the evidence; the alleged contracts were never exhibited
12 months' salary compensation
No unfair termination proved
Damages for discrimination of Kshs. 5,000,000 and general damages for constitutional violations
No rights violation established
Costs
There will be no order of 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.
The petitioner having averred an employment relationship has the duty and obligation to prove the same.
The contracts the respondents referred to were never submitted before court and neither was there any evidence of the nature of the contract between the petitioner and respondent save for the payslips which shows that she was paid a gross salary of kshs 15,500/- as per her November 2024 payslip.
In the absence of any evidence as to the nature of the contract between the petitioner and respondent and how it ended, I find the Petition is not proved as per law and must therefore fail. There will be no order of costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently records the second contract end date, variously as 28th February 2025 and 25th February 2025
The judgment inconsistently records the payslip salary as Kshs. 15,000 in one passage and Kshs. 15,500 in another
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Namaemba v Consolidated Human Resource Solutions Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2631 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 29th January 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2631/eng@2025-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.