Riley Falcon Security Services Ltd v Maurice Oluoch Otieno
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cut a security guard's award by Kshs. 26,000 for two months he never worked, but upheld every other payment his employer owed him.
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 Trial Court erred in awarding the Respondent salary for November and December 2022
- 2.Whether the Trial Court erred in awarding the Respondent salary for April, May and June 2021
- 3.Whether the Trial Court erred in awarding the Respondent half salary for February 2022 despite documentary proof of payment
- 4.Whether the Trial Court erred in awarding leave pay
- 5.Whether the Trial Court erred in awarding severance pay in the absence of a finding of redundancy
- 6.Whether the Respondent was unlawfully terminated from employment
Key legal issues
#Award of salary for November and December 2022
The award was erroneous; the pleadings contained errata as to years and the Respondent was dismissed in March 2022, so no salary was due for those months.
The court found the claimant's pleadings were inelegant and contained errata in respect of the years. Since the Respondent was dismissed in March 2022, no salary could be due for November and December 2022, nor for November and December 2023. The award was therefore deducted from the decretal sum.
Other heads of award (salary for 2021, February 2022, leave, severance, notice, compensation)
The Trial Court's findings on all other heads were affirmed; there was no proof of payment of salary for March 2022.
Having re-evaluated the evidence, the court found no basis to disturb the Trial Court's awards apart from the two months included without basis. It noted there was no proof of payment of the salary for March 2022 and affirmed the remaining findings of the Trial Court.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, while bearing in mind it did not see or hear the witnesses.
Court orders
#- 1.The award of salary for November and December 2022 (Kshs. 26,000/-) is deducted from the decretal sum
- 2.The findings of the Trial Court other than the two months included without basis are affirmed
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Kisumu MCELRC (Magistrates' Court)
- E213 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the judgment and decree of Hon. Benson Ireri (CM) in Kisumu MCELRC No. E213 of 2023
Relief refused
#Setting aside the Trial Court's judgment in its entirety and dismissal of the Respondent's claim with costs
The appeal succeeded only in part; the Trial Court's findings were otherwise affirmed
Costs of the appeal and of the trial proceedings
The appeal was only partly successful
Costs
Each party will bear their own 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 pleadings by the Claimant were inelegant and had errata in respect to the respective years and there was therefore no salary due for November and December 2022 as the Respondent was dismissed in March 2022.
other than the 2 months that were included without basis – November and December 2022, the findings of the Trial Court are affirmed.
Appeal succeeds to the extent the decretal sum due is reduced by the sum of Kshs. 26,000/-.
As the appeal was only partly successful, each party will bear their own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states there was a plea for the November/December salaries yet also holds the award erroneous as unsupported
Appellant's memorandum lists ten grounds but the court's disposition addresses only the salary-for-November/December 2022 ground expressly
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Riley Falcon Security Services Ltd v Maurice Oluoch Otieno", Case Analysis (2026). Appeal No. E003 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2565/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.