William Wanyonyi Munialo v Maliwa Security Services Ltd, Maliwa Enterprises & Vincent Masinde
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a security guard's unfair termination appeal because he could not prove he was ever employed.
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 law and fact in finding and holding that the Appellant was at no time or period an employee of the Respondents and hence there was no unlawful termination
- 2.What orders should this court make in the disposal of this appeal
- 3.Costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellant proved an employment relationship with the Respondents
The Appellant failed to prove an employment relationship; the M-Pesa statement showed no payments from the Respondents and the attendance list bore no identifying marks of any Respondent
The court examined the documentary evidence: the M-Pesa statement for 1st January 2022 to 7th September 2023 showed no payment from any Respondent, and the pleaded first payment of Kshs4900 on 8th January 2022 was unsupported. The attendance list contained the Appellant's name but no Respondent's name, signature, letterhead or stamp, and improbably recorded work on 31st April 2021. No co-worker was called to corroborate employment.
Whether the burden of proving employment terms shifts to the employer
The burden of proving the employment relationship and unfair termination remained with the Appellant throughout and never shifted to the Respondents
Applying Section 47(5) of the Employment Act, the court held that the employee bears the burden of proving unfair termination. Since the Appellant never established a prima facie employment relationship, the evidential burden could not shift to the employer to disprove the terms of employment or produce records.
Whether this Court should interfere with the trial court's judgment
The trial court correctly found no employment relationship; there was no reason to interfere with its judgment
The court upheld the trial court's finding that the Appellant failed to prove an employment relationship with the Respondents or any of them, found no misapprehension of the evidence, and dismissed the appeal in its entirety with no order as to costs, each party bearing its own costs.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proving the existence of an employment relationship and unfair termination rests on the employee and does not shift to the employer unless the employee first establishes a prima facie case
- Section 47(5) of the Employment Act places the burden of proving unfair termination on the employee and the burden of justifying the grounds for termination on the employer
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal fails in its entirety and is hereby dismissed
- 2.Each party shall meet own costs in this appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Butali Magistrates' Court
- ELRC No. E020 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's employment claim (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; appeal from Butali Magistrates' Court ELRC No. E020 of 2023)
Relief refused
#Allowance of the appeal and substitution of the lower court's judgment with a finding allowing the Appellant's claim, with costs of both trial and appeal
The Appellant failed to prove an employment relationship or unfair termination on a balance of probabilities; the burden of proof never shifted to the Respondents
Costs
Each party shall meet own costs in this appeal.
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 burden of proof of the existence of an employment relationship as a basis for the claim for unfair termination was always with the Appellant.
At no point did the burden of proof that the Appellant was an employee of the Respondents shift to the Respondents.
The court upholds the finding of the trial court that the Appellant failed to prove an employment relationship with the Respondents or any of them.
a) The appeal fails in its entirety and is hereby dismissed. b) Each party shall meet own costs in this appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting dates for the lower court judgment
Submissions dated 2026 post-date the appeal filed in 2025, suggesting typographical errors
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "William Wanyonyi Munialo v Maliwa Security Services Ltd, Maliwa Enterprises & Vincent Masinde", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Appeal No. E011 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2519/eng@2026-09-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.