Alfred Murunga Wekesa & Abigael Nafula Sifuna (Suing as the legal Representative of the Estate of the late Wycliffe Misiko Wekesa) v The Board of Management Uhuru High School
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a school unfairly terminated a security guard for desertion because it never gave him a hearing, awarding his estate Kshs.158,411.
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 judgment by the trial court should be set aside or not
Key legal issues
#Whether the deceased's termination for alleged desertion was procedurally and substantively fair
The termination was unfair; the employer failed to comply with sections 41, 43 and 45(2) of the Employment Act despite tracing the deceased
The court found no evidence the deceased was invited to a disciplinary hearing or notified of intended termination on grounds of desertion. He was merely asked to go home to heal and his salary was stopped. Even if desertion were proved, section 44(4)(a) summary dismissal still required the section 41 fair-hearing process. The employer's failure struck at the core of procedural and substantive justice.
Whether the trial magistrate's judgment dismissing the claim should be set aside
The appeal succeeds; the trial court erred in dismissing the claim despite the employer's failure to prove desertion or fair procedure
As a first appeal, the court re-evaluated the evidence. The trial magistrate held no case was established despite the employer's failure to prove desertion or comply with mandatory statutory safeguards. The court found the deceased was unfairly terminated and allowed the appeal, awarding notice pay and compensation.
Whether the ancillary claims for underpayment, overtime, off-duty and public holiday dues were proved
Not proved; the court cannot grant awards in abstract
The appellants sought substantial sums for underpayment, overtime, off-duty and public holiday dues, but the court found these were not factually proved, applying the evidentiary burden in sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act that he who alleges must prove.
Legal principles established
#- An employer alleging desertion must prove efforts made to trace the employee and notify them of intended termination before termination
- Termination must have both substantive justification and procedural fairness
Court orders
#- 1.One month salary in lieu of notice of Kshs.14,401/= awarded to the estate of the deceased
- 2.Compensation of 10 months' salary under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act amounting to Kshs.144,010/= awarded to the estate
- 3.Costs of the suit awarded to the estate
- 4.Interest on the total award of Kshs.158,411/= at the rate of 14% per annum from date of judgment till full payment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (ELRC), Nakuru
- Nakuru CM ELRC No 48 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the subordinate court under the Employment Act framework (memorandum of appeal); no specific provision cited
Relief refused
#Underpayment dues (Kshs.20,606.20)
Not factually proved; awards cannot be granted in abstract
Overtime dues (Kshs.864,896.10)
Not factually proved
Off duty dues (Kshs.538,157.55)
Not factually proved
Public holiday dues (Kshs.131,240.75)
Not factually proved
Costs
The estate is awarded costs of the suit and interest on the total award amounting to Kshs.158,411/= at the rate of 14% per annum from date of judgment till full payment.
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 employer failed to comply and so the deceased was unfairly terminated. Therefore, the appeal succeeds.
Clearly, there is no evidence that the Claimant was invited for a disciplinary hearing and neither was he informed he was to be terminated on grounds of desertion.
the defence of desertion/absconding places a burden on employer to demonstrate efforts made to notify the employee the intention to terminate their services on account of that reason.
The other prayers for underpayment, overtime, off duties and public holidays are not factually proved and court cannot grant awards in abstract.
Under Section 49(1)(c) of Employment Act the Appellant is awarded salary equivalent to 10 months amounting to Kshs.144,010/=.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting statements on length of service
Judgment date of 2026 appears anomalous given 2025 appeal filing
Interest order conflates award total and interest amount
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Alfred Murunga Wekesa & Abigael Nafula Sifuna (Suing as the legal Representative of the Estate of the late Wycliffe Misiko Wekesa) v The Board of Management Uhuru High School", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Appeal No. E021 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2573/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.