Kenya Concrete, Structural, Ceramic Tiles, Wood Plys and Interior Design Workers Union v China State Construction Corp. Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a construction company unfairly fired seven workers but awarded only the small amounts it had already admitted owing.
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 grievants' employment contracts were unfairly/unlawfully terminated by the Respondent.
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether the terminations were unfair/unlawful
Yes - the Respondent, bearing the burden under section 45(2) of the Employment Act, called no witness; the unchallenged conciliator's report was adopted and termination held unfair.
Section 45(2) places the burden on the employer to prove a valid reason and fair procedure. The Respondent never called any witness to support its defence and did not challenge the conciliator's report even at hearing. The court therefore adopted the report on unfair termination, holding Ekure Midong was summarily dismissed without fair procedure and the rest were laid off without due redundancy process.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought, including adoption of the conciliator's report
Only in part - the report was not capable of adoption as proposed; only amounts expressly admitted in the Respondent's defence were awarded.
Reinstatement was impracticable four years after termination and six months' compensation was unjustified given only one year of fixed-term service. The pleadings failed to state monthly salaries or particulars, making computation impossible. The court awarded only the terminal dues the Respondent admitted in paragraph 6 of its defence for three grievants and declined the rest.
Legal principles established
#- Under section 45(2) of the Employment Act, the employer bears the burden of proving a valid reason and fair procedure for termination; failure to adduce evidence means termination is unfair.
- Parties are bound by their pleadings; where damages are not pleaded with particulars and cannot be computed, they should be declined.
- A conciliator's report unchallenged by the respondent may be adopted by the court on the issue of unfair termination, but is not automatically capable of wholesale adoption as a judgment.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the grievants' employment was unfair.
- 2.Payment to Lowos Emeri of Kshs. 44,667.54.
- 3.Payment to Oliver Edapal Lokholome of Kshs. 44,667.54.
- 4.Payment to Mark Emase of Kshs. 40,456.64.
- 5.Interest at court rates from the date of Judgment.
- 6.Each side to bear its own costs.
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 Article 162(2) of the Constitution over employment and labour relations disputes (implied; not expressly cited)
Relief refused
#Adoption of the conciliator's report (including reinstatement and six months' compensation) as proposed by the Claimant
Reinstatement not practicable four years after termination; six months' compensation unjustified given only one year of service under fixed-term contracts; report made no specific figures
Monetary claims of grievants not admitted by the Respondent (Ekure Midong, Charles Kirui, Fredrick Omondi Onyango, Elipan Ekai Jackson)
Lacked particulars and evidence; Claimant failed to plead monthly salary and particulars of the claims
Costs
Each side will bear its own costs, since the suit has only succeeded to a small extent.
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.
In view of the unchallenged conciliators report, I proceed to adopt it on the issue of unfair termination and hold that the Claimant has proved on a balance of probability that the Respondent unfairly terminated the grievant’s employment.
Parties are bound by their pleadings and where the court is unable to compute the damages sought the same should be declined.
Since the Claimant never pleaded the said particulars it should not expect the court to manufacture the same from no where.
Accordingly, I enter judgment for the Claimant against the Respondent as follows:
Since the suit has only succeeded to a small extent, each side will bear its own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Grievant name inconsistently rendered as 'Ekure Midong', 'Midong Arii' and 'Ekure Midiong Arii' across pleadings and judgment
Grievant surnames inconsistently spelled, e.g. 'Lowos Emeri'/'Lowas Emeri' and 'Lokholome'/'Lokhotome'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Concrete, Structural, Ceramic Tiles, Wood Plys and Interior Design Workers Union v China State Construction Corp. Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E247 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2657/eng@2026-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.