Edward Linganga Khabongo v Speed Eye Investments Limited T/A Salt Club and Restaurant
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a restaurant manager Kshs.284,971 after finding his oral employment contract valid and his dismissal unfair.
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 Claimant was employed by the Respondent as pleaded by him.
- 2.Whether termination of the Claimant's employment was unfair.
- 3.Whether the reliefs sought by the Claimant are merited.
Key legal issues
#Existence of employment relationship
Claimant proved on a balance of probabilities that he was employed as a Manager from 10th February 2015 to 4th October 2016 earning Kshs.35,000/= per month
The NSSF statement naming the Respondent as employer was undisputed public evidence bearing the Respondent's employer number. It was corroborated by the claimant's job card, a letter signed by the claimant as Manager, and Respondent documents only an employee could possess. The Respondent offered no alternative explanation for the claimant's possession of its documents.
Fairness of termination
Termination was both procedurally and substantively unfair
No termination notice under Section 35(1)(c) or payment in lieu was shown; Section 41 procedure was not followed; and the Respondent, which denied any contract, demonstrated no valid reason for termination. Under Section 43(1), failure to prove reasons renders termination unfair under Section 45.
Reliefs
Reinstatement disallowed due to passage of time; alternative monetary reliefs awarded in part; discrimination, off-days and service pay claims declined
Given termination over three years prior, reinstatement was disallowed. Five months' salary compensation, one month in lieu of notice, unpaid September 2016 salary, four days' October salary and accrued leave were allowed. Leave claim succeeded because the Respondent kept no leave records under Section 74(f). Discrimination and off-day claims failed for want of proof; service pay was barred by Section 35(6)(d).
Legal principles established
#- An oral contract of employment is valid; absence of a written contract cannot disprove employment
- An employer who fails to produce a written contract bears the burden of proving or disproving alleged terms of employment
- An employer must prove the reason for termination, failing which the termination is deemed unfair
- An employer cannot benefit from its own breach of the statutory obligation to draw up written particulars of employment
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant against the Respondent for Kshs.284,971/= comprising compensation for unfair termination (Kshs.175,000/=), payment in lieu of notice (Kshs.35,000/=), unpaid September 2016 salary (Kshs.35,000/=), unpaid salary for 4 days in October 2016 (Kshs.3,498/=) and unpaid leave days (Kshs.36,473/=)
- 2.The awarded sum shall be subject to PAYE tax pursuant to Section 49(2) of the Employment Act
- 3.The awarded sum shall attract interest at Court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 4.The Respondent to issue the Claimant with a certificate of service within thirty days from the date of the Judgment
- 5.The Claimant is awarded costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (ELRC Cause)
Relief refused
#Reinstatement/re-engagement
Employment terminated over 3 years earlier; reinstatement impracticable
Compensation for 28 off days (Kshs.32,648/=)
No evidence of specific untaken and unpaid off days
Compensation for discrimination (Kshs.2,000,000/=)
Discrimination not proved; claimant had nothing to show co-manager's higher pay
Service pay (Kshs.17,500/=)
Claimant was an NSSF contributor, disqualified by Section 35(6)(d)
Costs
The Claimant is awarded costs of the suit.
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 any proceedings to which this Act applies, the Court shall act without undue regard to technicalities
The absence of a written employment contract cannot invalidate the fact of the Claimant having been the Respondent’s employee.
cannot be allowed to hide behind its own breach of the law
Judgment is hereby entered for the Claimant against the Respondent
Total ……………………………… = Kshs.284,971/=
The awarded sum shall attract interest at Court rates, from the date of this Judgment until payment in full.
The Claimant is awarded costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment date of 2026 appears inconsistent with the 2024-2025 procedural chronology recited in the judgment
Document marked 'DRAFT' throughout and header shows 'JUDGMENT Nairobi ELRC Cause No. 1917 of 2017Page 1 of 20' formatting artifacts
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Edward Linganga Khabongo v Speed Eye Investments Limited T/A Salt Club and Restaurant", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. 1917 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2698/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.