Kiilu v Headteacher, Milaani Mixed Secondary School & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1331 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 3756 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a security guard Kshs. 395,247 after unfair dismissal, but refused to compensate his work injuries through the employment court.
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 Claimant proved unlawful and unfair summary dismissal
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to notice pay, service pay, leave pay, overtime, unpaid public holidays and Sundays, and unremitted NSSF dues
- 3.Whether the court can award general damages for the injuries suffered at work
- 4.What compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act is appropriate
Key legal issues
#Unlawful summary dismissal
The summary dismissal was unfair and unlawful as it was without notice, hearing or valid reason
The Claimant testified he was dismissed after asking for compensation for injuries suffered at work. The evidence was uncontroverted as the Respondents failed to call witnesses or cross-examine. The court found violations of sections 36, 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act requiring notice, procedure and valid reason for termination.
Compensation under section 49
Twelve months' salary compensation awarded as the maximum equivalent
The court considered aggravating factors: underpayment, no leave, unpaid NSSF, dismissal for demanding injury compensation, the Claimant's age of 66 years limiting re-employment, and absence of contributory fault, warranting the maximum 12 months' compensation under section 49(1)(c) and (4).
Jurisdiction over work injury claims
The court cannot award general damages for work injuries; such claims belong to the DOSH/WIBA regime
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Law Society of Kenya vs Attorney General & Another, the court held that work injury compensation must be pursued under WIBA through DOSH, except for matters with legitimate expectation predating the Act.
Legal principles established
#- Uncontroverted evidence on a balance of probabilities proves the particulars of claim under sections 27 and 28 of the Evidence Act
- Summary dismissal without notice, notice to show cause or hearing violates sections 36, 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007
- Work injury claims fall outside the court's jurisdiction and must be referred to DOSH under WIBA
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant against the Respondents jointly and severally
- 2.Kshs. 335,247.00 terminal benefits
- 3.Kshs. 60,000.00 compensation for unlawful and unfair summary dismissal (12 months' salary)
- 4.Total award of Kshs. 395,247.00
- 5.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
- 6.Interest at court rates from date of judgment till payment in full
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007; claim filed as amended memorandum of claim
Relief refused
#General damages for injuries suffered at work
The court lacked jurisdiction over work injury claims which must be addressed under WIBA/DOSH regime
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the Claimant
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.
Accordingly, the court enters judgment in favour of the Claimant against the respondents jointly and severally as follows: i. Kshs. 335,247 as particularized in paragraph 167 of the amended memorandum of claim
In the final analysis the total reliefs awarded to the Claimant against the Respondents jointly and severally are:a. Kshs. 335,247.00 terminal benefits. b. Kshs. 60,000.00 compensation Total award Kshs. 395,247.00 c. Costs of the suit d. Interest at court rates from date of judgment till payment in full.
The court lacks jurisdiction to award any general damages in respect of the injuries sufiered by the Claimant.
The court finds that the summary dismissal of the Claimant violated sections 36, 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states service of 4 years 6 months but compensation is computed on employment from January 2008 to desertion in 2013 and reliefs use 4.67 years; the tenure figures are internally inconsistent with the claim pleaded from 2008
Award refers to 'paragraph 167 of the amended memorandum of claim' though the memorandum cited appears to have paragraphs 8 to 25
The 2nd Respondent is never specifically named in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiilu v Headteacher, Milaani Mixed Secondary School & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1331 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 3756 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (amended memorandum of claim dated 24th February 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3756/eng@2025-12-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.