Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedAppeal No. E032 of 2025

Crown Bus Services Limited v Sheban Manyasa Obwonya

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 September 2026
3,523 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court cut a bus company's redundancy payout from Kshs339,914 to Kshs32,191 because the employee filed his claim too late.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kakamega (David Nderitu, J) heard a first appeal by Crown Bus Services Limited against a judgment of Hon. V.O. Amboko (SRM) delivered on 21st November 2025 in Kakamega CMELRC No. E003 of 2023, which had found the Respondent's redundancy unlawful for breach of Sections 40(1)(b), (c), (e), (f) and (g) of the Employment Act and awarded notice pay, unpaid salary, unpaid leave and severance. The Appellant raised three grounds: that the unpaid salary claim was a continuing injury statute-barred under Section 90/89 of the Employment Act; that severance should have been computed at fifteen days' pay per completed year; and that the magistrate failed to determine the issues submitted. The court upheld the finding that the redundancy was procedurally flawed - the notice was not served on the Labour Office and severance was unpaid - and declined to disturb the declarations and the notice-pay award of Kshs20,652.90. However, it held that unpaid salary and leave were continuing injuries whose twelve-month limitation expired before the cause was filed on 14th February 2023, some fifteen months and thirteen days after the 1st November 2021 termination, and set aside those awards, the magistrate having failed to address the jurisdictional limitation issue. Severance was recomputed at fifteen days' pay for one completed year on basic pay of Kshs20,000, yielding Kshs11,538.46. Judgment was substituted at Kshs32,191.36 with interest from 21st November 2025; trial costs were left with the Respondent and each party bears its own costs of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the redundancy terminating the Respondent was lawful

Holding

The redundancy was substantively justified (Covid-19 financial disruption) but procedurally flawed for failure to notify the labour office and pay severance, rendering it unlawful.

Reasoning

The trial court found the redundancy notice dated 1st October 2021 was never served on the area Labour Office as required by Section 40(1)(b), and severance was never paid, as DW1 conceded. Non-compliance with these mandatory provisions rendered the entire redundancy process flawed and unlawful, and the appellate court saw no reason to disturb that finding.

p. 10
02

Whether the claim for unpaid salaries and leave was statute-barred

Holding

Yes - the awards for unpaid salary and unpaid leave were set aside as the claim was filed outside the 12-month limit for continuing injuries under Section 89.

Reasoning

The court held that unpaid salary and leave are continuing injuries whose limitation period runs twelve months from cessation. Termination took effect on 1st November 2021 but the cause was filed on 14th February 2023, 15 months and 13 days later. The trial magistrate had failed to address the limitation issue raised in submissions, arriving at a wrong finding on a jurisdictional point.

p. 13
03

Whether the severance award was correctly computed

Holding

No - severance was reduced to 15 days' pay for one completed year on basic pay of Kshs20,000, computed at Kshs11,538.46.

Reasoning

Section 40(1)(g) pegs severance at not less than fifteen days' pay for each completed year of service. The Respondent served from 12th February 2020 to 1st November 2021, completing only one full year. The trial court's award of one month's net salary was wrong; the correct computation on basic pay yields Kshs11,538.46.

p. 15
04

Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to determine the Appellant's submitted issues

Holding

Yes - failure to address the jurisdictional issue of limitation in the judgment was an error of law warranting appellate intervention.

Reasoning

The Appellant had submitted on limitation at pages 110-114 of the record, but the trial magistrate's judgment did not address it. Because limitation goes to jurisdiction and may be raised at any stage, the omission produced a wrong finding and justified setting aside the affected awards.

p. 14

Legal principles established

#
  • A jurisdictional issue such as limitation may be raised at any stage of proceedings, including on appeal.
  • Non-payment of salary or leave constitutes a continuing injury under Section 89 of the Employment Act, with limitation running twelve months from cessation of the injury.
  • Severance pay on redundancy is computed at 15 days' pay for each completed year of service on basic pay.
  • A first appellate court must evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions while bearing in mind it did not hear the witnesses.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal succeeds to the extent that the award of Kshs264,187/= as unpaid salary and unpaid leave is set aside
  2. 2.The severance pay of Kshs20,652.90 is substituted with the sum of Kshs11,500/=
  3. 3.Judgment entered in favour of the Respondent in the sum of Kshs32,191.36 plus interest from 21st November 2025 till payment in full, in substitution of the judgment for Kshs339,914.30
  4. 4.A fresh decree shall issue accordingly
  5. 5.Costs of the trial in the lower court to the Respondent as ordered
  6. 6.Each party shall meet own costs for this appeal
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Kakamega (CMELRC)
Kakamega CMELRC No. E003 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (appeal from CMELRC No. E003 of 2023)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Crown Bus Services Limited v Sheban Manyasa Obwonya", Case Analysis (2026). Appeal No. E032 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2553/eng@2026-09-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.