SGA Security Solutions Ltd v Kasanya (Appeal E079 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2683 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenyan private-sector employers cannot retire staff early unless a contract or policy clearly states a retirement age.
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 retirement of the respondent effective 30 December 2020, before he attained 55 years, amounted to unfair termination
- 2.Whether the award of 6 months' salary compensation was justified
- 3.Whether the claim for unpaid overtime and public holiday allowances was proved
- 4.Whether gratuity was already paid, and if not, at what rate it falls due
Key legal issues
#Whether early retirement before attaining 55 years was unfair termination
Retiring the respondent six months before he attained 55 years was premature; where no contract or policy fixes a retirement age, the employee cannot be retired early, and the award of 6 months' pay was justified.
The court held there is no statutory mandatory retirement age in the private sector; the applicable Regulation of Wages Order allowed retirement at 55, and the respondent would turn 55 only on 15 July 2021. The appellant produced no employment contract or company policy fixing retirement age for night guards, so the retirement notice was premature and unfair.
Overtime and public holiday claims
Claims declined for lack of particulars and for being time-barred as continuing injuries under section 90.
The court found the 24-year overtime claim unparticularised and exaggerated, and held that claims accruing daily, weekly or monthly are continuing injuries under section 90 of the Employment Act, which are defeated by limitation if not claimed within the statutory period.
Gratuity
Gratuity in the protective security industry is at 15 days' pay per full year worked; the respondent earned Ksh. 174,133 for 23 years, subject to deduction of terminal dues already paid.
Applying the Regulation of Wages (Protective Security Services) Order, the court applied 15 days' pay per full year of service, computing 23 full years at the last gross wage of Ksh. 15,142, and offset the admitted payment of Ksh. 204,942 already received.
Legal principles established
#- Kenyan employment law does not fix a mandatory retirement age for private-sector employees; any retirement age must be express in the contract/HR manual or implied from conduct.
- Claims accruing daily, weekly or monthly, such as overtime and public holiday allowances, are continuing injuries under section 90 of the Employment Act and become time-barred if not claimed within the limitation period.
- Exaggerated or unparticularised claims by employees should be declined.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment in Mombasa CMELRC No. E418 of 2023 confirmed to the extent that 6 months' pay in compensation of Ksh. 154,244.60 is upheld
- 2.Gratuity pay fixed at Ksh. 174,133
- 3.The compensation and gratuity payments to be paid less what was already received at Ksh. 204,942
- 4.Costs as awarded by the trial court; for the appeal, each party to bear its costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (ELRC), Mombasa
- Mombasa CMELRC No. E418 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's ELRC judgment (appellate jurisdiction of the ELRC under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act)
Relief refused
#Claim for unpaid overtime for 24 years
Claim not particularized and time-barred as a continuing injury; exaggerated claims should be declined
Claim for unpaid allowances during public holidays
Without particulars
Costs
Costs as awarded by the trial court; for the appeal, each party to bear its 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.
However, the law on employment relations in Kenya does not provide for a mandatory retirement age for employees in the private sector.
Claims such as overtime or work during public holidays have been defined as continuing injury. Waiting 24 years to make such claims renders them time-barred.
Accordingly, the appeal analyzed above, judgment in Mombasa CMELRC No. E418 of 2023 is confirmed to the extent that;
Costs as awarded by the trial court, for the appeal, each party to bear its costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment does not state the names of the parties, the appeal case number, or the cause title; party names are only referred to as 'the appellant' and 'the respondent'.
Internal inconsistency in the date of the retirement notice: the judgment at one point says the notice was dated 1 July 2020 and elsewhere 15 July 2020.
The appellant's date of birth stated as 15 July 1966 is described in one passage with the erroneous reference 'January 1966'.
Gratuity awarded (Ksh. 174,133) plus compensation exceeds or approximates terminal dues already paid (Ksh. 204,942), and the offset direction 'to be paid less what is received at Ksh.204,942' may leave no net payment due depending on apportionment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "SGA Security Solutions Ltd v Kasanya (Appeal E079 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2683 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Mombasa ELRC Appeal (arising from Mombasa CMELRC No. E418 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2683/eng@2025-10-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.