Alex Kimani Nyenjeri v Cellulant Kenya Limited

e) A declaration that the Respondent violated the Claimant’s right to non-discrimination under Article 27 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. f) General & Exemplary damages for violation of Fundamental Rights & Freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. g) 12 months’ salary for unfair termination of employment at Kshs. 870,000 x 12 …………….KES 10,440,000/= h) Unpaid House Allowances for the entire period of service, (1 st September 2016 to 12th January, 2024) 15/100 x 870,000 x 88.4 months….KES 11,536,200/=. i) Damages for the remainder of the period which the Claimant legitimately expected to be under the Respondent’s employment (from 12th January 2024 to 1st July 2025) 870,000 x 17.8 months ………………….KES 15,486,000/=. j) An order compelling the Respondent to vest the remainder of the Claimant’s 98.62 shares under the Claimant’s Employee Share Ownership Plan and bequeath him with the requisite share certificate. k) In the alternative to prayer (h) above, a monetary equivalent of the 98.62 shares, calculated against the Respondent’s most recent valuation. l) Interests on f, g and I above from the date of filing the suit. m) Costs of the suit and interests thereon. n) Certificate of service o) Any other relief that this Honourable Court deems fit. 2. The Respondent filed a Response to the Amended Statement of Claim dated 22nd April 2024, denying the claim, and contends 2 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 2 of 25

that the Claimant’s position fell redundant following a genuine product restructuring. 3. The Claimant filed a Reply to the Response, maintaining that the redundancy process was not followed. 4. The Claimant’s case was heard on 18th March 2025. He adopted his witness statement dated 5th March 2024 as his evidence-inchief and produced the documents in his list of documents as exhibits 1- 8 and those in his further list of documents as exhibits 9-12. 5. The Respondent’s case was heard on 28th January 2026. Michael Muriuki, the Respondent’s Chief Product and Technology Officer, testified on behalf of the Respondent, adopted his witness statement dated 24th November 2025 and produced the Respondent’s documents as exhibits 1-12. 6. Parties subsequently filed written submissions, which the Court has duly considered. The Claimant’s Case 7. The Claimant states that he joined the Respondent’s employ on 1st September 2016 as a Product Manager and rose to the position of Senior Product Leader in charge of the Checkout Product. He avers that at the time of separation, his gross monthly salary was Kshs.870,000. 8. It is his case that he served diligently and that the Checkout Product was one of the Respondent’s highest revenue generating 3 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 3 of 25

products. He contends that there was no genuine operational basis for abolishing his role because the product continued to exist and its leadership and functions were assigned to another employee. 9. The Claimant testified that the possibility of redundancies was first mentioned at a companywide town hall meeting held on 11th December 2023, where the CEO stated that restructuring was being undertaken, and that it might result in redundancies. He avers that he received the termination letter dated 12th January 2024. 10.The Claimant further testified that he received a mutual separation agreement and signed both the termination terms and the separation agreement on 14th January 2024. He stated that he read the agreement but was under pressure to receive the payment in order to support his family, and that the payment was made less statutory deductions. 11.On cross-examination, he confirmed that his position at termination was Senior Product Leader, that the restructuring had been introduced at the town hall meeting and that he signed the separation documents. 12.On re-examination, the Claimant stated that he was coaxed into signing the separation agreement, had no meaningful choice because he needed to safeguard his family, and that he was not claiming monies that had already been paid. 4 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 4 of 25

13.The Claimant maintained that he did not foresee his role being declared redundant because Checkout had the highest revenue collection and the company was not under financial distress. He asserted that his role was given to a colleague at the same level. 14.The Claimant further states that the premature termination frustrated the vesting of the balance of his ESOP shares and that he was entitled to house allowance separately from his salary. 15.The Claimant further submitted that the termination of his employment on account of redundancy was neither substantively justified nor procedurally fair. The Claimant argued that although the Respondent alleged that it had undertaken an organizational restructuring, it failed to demonstrate how the restructuring rendered the Claimant’s position of Senior Product Leader superfluous within the meaning of Section 2 of the Employment Act. 16.The Claimant submits that the Checkout Product remained operational, continued to generate substantial revenue, and was subsequently managed by another employee upon him being declared redundant. 17. It is further submitted that the Respondent failed to establish a valid and fair reason for termination as required under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. According to the Claimant, no sufficient evidence was presented showing the nature of the alleged consolidation, the positions affected or the manner in which his role ceased to exist. 5 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 5 of 25

18.On procedural fairness, it is submitted that the Respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 40 of the Employment Act. In particular, the alleged notice to the Nairobi County Labour Office was neither produced in evidence nor supported by an acknowledgment of receipt. He submits that the town hall meeting held on 11th December 2023 constituted a general announcement of a possible restructuring and did not amount to an individual redundancy notice or meaningful consultation. 19.The Claimant further submitted that he was not afforded an opportunity to make representations or propose alternatives before the decision to terminate his employment was made. He argues that the Respondent did not disclose the selection pool, comparative assessment or objective criteria applied in selecting him for redundancy as required under Section 40(1)(c) of the Employment Act. Reliance was placed on Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 Others [2014] eKLR and Thomas De La Rue (K) Limited v David Opondo Omutelema [2013] eKLR on the requirements of consultation and compliance with the statutory redundancy procedure. 20. On the Terms of Separation and Release Agreement, the Claimant submits that it was executed under economic duress as payment of his terminal benefits was conditional upon signing the agreement. It is his submission that the agreement could neither validate an unlawful redundancy nor operate as a waiver of the Claimant’s mandatory statutory rights. 6 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 6 of 25

21.On the reliefs sought, the Claimant submitted that the premature termination frustrated the vesting of the remaining shares allocated to him under the ESOP and defeated his legitimate expectation that the shares would fully vest. He further relied on Section 31 of the Employment Act in support of the claim for unpaid house allowance, contending that the Respondent had not demonstrated that his salary expressly included a housing element. 22.The Claimant consequently urges the Court to find that the redundancy was substantively and procedurally unfair and to award compensation for unfair termination, house allowance, relief in respect of the remaining ESOP shares, damages, costs and interest. The Respondent’s Case 23.The Respondent’s witness (RW1) testified that he was directly involved in the product restructuring. He stated that the restructuring was undertaken to enhance efficiency and consolidate product functions, and not because the Respondent was insolvent. 24. RW1 maintained that the Respondent had provided an analysis of the product restructuring and the positions affected. He acknowledged that the Claimant worked on the Checkout Product and that Checkout still exists. He further confirmed that a team continues to handle and sell the product to existing and new clients, albeit in a modified and expanded product structure. 7 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 7 of 25

25.On the statutory process, the witness stated that notice was given to the Labour Office. He, however, conceded on crossexamination that no such letter or acknowledgment from the Labour Office was before Court and that no meeting was held at the Labour Office. It is his position that he was not the custodian of the redundancy compliance records. 26.The witness further admitted that the Claimant was not invited to make representations on the proposed redundancy and that he did not know whether an appeal mechanism existed. He further confirmed that payment was conditional upon signing acceptance of the termination letter. 27. The witness accepted the propositions that an acceptance cannot legitimize an unlawful process and that severance pay cannot be used to secure a waiver of statutory rights. 28.Regarding ESOP, RW1 stated that employees were selected for share awards depending on their roles. He states that shares vested over four years, and that vesting depended upon continued employment and compliance with performance and conduct requirements. 29.On re-examination, he stated that cash settlement of shares depended upon an exit event recognized under the scheme. 30.The witness maintained that the Claimant was senior enough to understand that the company was restructuring, that product developed belonged to the company and may continue to be sold 8 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 8 of 25

after an employee’s departure, and that the Claimant read, agreed to and signed the TSRA. 31.The Respondent submitted that the termination arose from a genuine organizational restructuring intended to consolidate product functions, improve operational efficiency and eliminate overlapping leadership roles. Counsel argued that the Claimant’s position became superfluous within the meaning of Section 2 of the Employment Act and that financial distress or insolvency was not a prerequisite for a lawful redundancy. 32.The Respondent placed reliance on Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 Others [2014] eKLR, Jane I. Khalechi v Oxford University Press (EA) Limited [2013] eKLR and Cargill Kenya Limited v Mwaka & 3 Others [2021] eKLR, for the proposition that restructuring is a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative and that the Court should not substitute its business judgment for that of an employer where the restructuring is genuine and undertaken in good faith. 33.The Respondent further submits that the continued operation and sale of the Checkout Product did not establish that the Claimant’s position continued to exist. It argued that the product belonged to the Respondent and could continue being developed, modified and sold notwithstanding the consolidation or abolition of the leadership role previously occupied by the Claimant. 34.On procedural fairness, it is submitted that the Respondent complied with Section 40 of the Employment Act, having notified 9 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 9 of 25

the Nairobi County Labour Office of the intended redundancy, conducting a town hall meeting on 11th December 2023 and thereafter engaging the Claimant on the effect of the restructuring upon his role. Reliance was placed on Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited & Another v Gladys Muthoni & 20 Others [2018] eKLR, for the proposition that consultation requires meaningful engagement but does not require the parties to reach consensus. 35.Regarding the Terms of Separation and Release Agreement, the Respondent submitted that the Claimant voluntarily read, understood and executed the agreement and thereafter accepted the negotiated separation benefits. Reliance was placed on Coastal Bottlers Limited v Kimathi Mithika [2018] eKLR and Thomas De La Rue (K) Limited v David Opondo Omutelema [2013] eKLR, for the proposition that parties are bound by a voluntarily executed settlement agreement unless fraud, coercion, undue influence or another vitiating factor is proved. 36.On the ESOP claim, it is submitted that the allocation of shares did not guarantee continued employment or confer an automatic entitlement to unvested shares. Reliance was placed on Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 Others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 Others [2014] eKLR, for the proposition that legitimate expectation must arise from a clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation. 10 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 10 of 25

37.The Respondent further submitted that the Claimant’s monthly salary of Kshs.870,000 was consolidated and included a housing element as permitted under Section 31(2)(a) of the Employment Act. Reliance was placed on Grain Pro Kenya Inc. Limited v Andrew Waithaka Kiragu [2019] eKLR and Krystalline Salt Limited v Kwekwe Mwakele & 67 Others [2017] eKLR, in opposing the claim for separate house allowance. 38.The Respondent finally submitted that the Claimant has not established a distinct constitutional violation warranting separate constitutional damages. Reliance was placed on Alphonse Maghanga Mwachanya v Operation 680 Limited [2013] eKLR. The Respondent further cited Kenfreight (EA) Limited v Benson K. Nguti [2016] eKLR, for the proposition that compensation under Section 49 of the Employment Act is discretionary and only arises where termination is found to be unfair. 39.The Respondent consequently prays that the Court finds the redundancy was lawful, uphold the Terms of Separation and Release Agreement as valid and binding, dismiss the claim in its entirety and award it costs of the suit. Analysis and Determination 40.Having considered the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the parties’ submissions, the issues that arise for determination are: i. Whether the Claimant’s redundancy justified and procedurally fair; 11 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024 was substantively

page 11 of 25

ii. Whether the Terms of Separation and Release Agreement (TSRA) bar the Claimant’s claim; and iii. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. Whether the Claimant’s redundancy was substantively justified and procedurally fair 41. Section 2 of the Employment Act, 2007, defines redundancy as the loss of employment, occupation, job or career by involuntary means through no fault of an employee, involving termination of employment at the initiative of the employer, where the services of an employee are superfluous and the practices commonly known as abolition of office, job or occupation and loss of employment. 42.The conditions for termination on account of redundancy are set out under Section 40 of the Employment Act, as follows: “40. Termination on account of redundancy (1)An employer shall not terminate a contract of service on account of redundancy unless the employer complies with the following conditions:(a)where the employee is a member of a trade union, the employer notifies the which the employee is member a union to and the labour officer in charge of the area where the employee is employed of the reasons for, and the 12 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024 extent of, the

page 12 of 25

intended redundancy not less than a month prior to the date of the intended date of termination on account of redundancy; (b)where a trade an employee is union, not a member of the employer notifies the employee personally in writing and the selection of the labour officer; (c)the employer has, in employees to be declared redundant had due regard to seniority in time and to the skill, ability and reliability of each employee of the particular class of employees affected by the redundancy; (d)where there is in existence a collective agreement between an employer and a trade union setting out terminal benefits payable upon redundancy; the employer has not placed the employee at a disadvantage for being or not being a member of the trade union; (e)the employer has where leave is due to an employee who is declared redundant, paid off the leave in cash; 13 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 13 of 25

(f)the employer has paid an employee declared redundant not less than one month's notice or one month's wages in lieu of notice; and (g)the employer has paid to an employee declared redundant severance pay at the rate of not less than fifteen days pay for each completed year of service.” 43.As a general rule, an employer retains the managerial prerogative to reorganize its business, and the Court does not ordinarily substitute its opinion for that of the employer. This prerogative is, however, subject to Sections 40, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. In Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 others [2014] KECA 403 (KLR), the Court of Appeal affirmed that redundancy is a legitimate managerial tool but emphasized that the reason must be genuine and the statutory procedure must be observed. 44.Further, in Cargill Kenya Ltd v Mwaka & 3 Others [2021] KECA 115 (KLR), the Court of Appeal explained that an employer must demonstrate that the termination is attributable to the redundancy and that, where selection is necessary, the criteria under Section 40(1)(c) must be objectively, uniformly and fairly applied. 45.The Claimant's position is that his declaration of redundancy was not genuine on the basis that the Checkout Product continued to exist and has remained commercially successful. He further contends that another employee continues to perform the 14 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 14 of 25

function and that the Respondent was not experiencing financial distress when he was declared redundant. 46.On its part, the Respondent, through RW1, maintained that it undertook a product restructuring to consolidate product functions, improve efficiency, eliminate overlapping leadership positions, and redesign its organizational structure. It further argues that redundancy does not require insolvency or financial distress. 47.As correctly submitted by the Respondent, financial distress is not a prerequisite to redundancy. The relevant question is not whether the business or product continued, but whether the Claimant's particular office or role became superfluous as a result of the restructuring. Indeed, the Kenya Airways case recognizes that restructuring legitimately render and other positions operational redundant decisions even where may the underlying business continues. 48.The Respondent's evidence is that there was a product restructuring, consolidation of functions and elimination of overlapping leadership positions. RW1 acknowledged that Checkout, where the Claimant served, continued to operate and that another employee was assigned to handle and sell the product. This fact, though it does not automatically defeat the redundancy, required the Respondent to explain precisely what happened to the Claimant's office. 15 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 15 of 25

49.The Respondent should, in my view, have demonstrated that the Senior Product Leader position was abolished or materially consolidated, rather than merely replacing the Claimant with another person performing substantially the same job. 50.Further, although RW1 stated that notice was issued to the Labour Office, he expressly conceded that the notice was not produced in evidence before the court, and no acknowledgment of receipt was also produced. As the employer is the party asserting compliance with Section 40, it is not sufficient to state that a letter was sent without producing the letter or other evidence establishing transmission or receipt. 51.It is also evident that the 11th December 2023 town-hall meeting merely communicated generally that restructuring was taking place and that redundancies might occur. In my view, such a scenario is fundamentally different from the statutory notice contemplated by Section 40. By law, the employee was entitled to know, before termination, that his employment was specifically at risk, the reasons for the proposed redundancy, the extent of the redundancy, the position or category affected, and the proposed effective date. 52.The Court of Appeal in Cargill Kenya Ltd v Mwaka (supra) explained that the statutory notice must communicate the reasons for and extent of the intended redundancy and be given at least one month before the intended termination. The town hall announcement cannot therefore be treated as the Claimant's individual statutory redundancy notice. 16 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 16 of 25

53.On the criterion, Section 40(1)(c) requires an employer, where selection from a particular class of employees is involved, to have regard to seniority in time, skill, ability, and reliability. The Court of Appeal in Cargill Kenya Ltd v Mwaka & 3 Others (supra) held that the statutory factors must form part of the selection criteria and that the criteria must be applied objectively, uniformly, and fairly. 54.The Claimant’s further assertion is that another employee at the same level assumed his functions. If the Respondent's position is that the Claimant's position was abolished altogether, then it should have demonstrated the new organizational structure and explained why the functions formerly attached to that position were consolidated elsewhere. 55.The evidence before the court is that the Respondent retained the position previously held by the Claimant, but chose another employee to perform it, which in all fairness ceases to be a straightforward abolition of office redundancy. The Respondent ought, in my view, to have explained why it selected the Claimant, rather than the other employee, for redundancy. 56.Similarly, there was no comparative assessment, selection matrix, seniority analysis, skills assessment or reliability assessment demonstrated in the facts before the Court. 17 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 17 of 25

57.In the final analysis, I find and hold that the Respondent failed to demonstrate compliance with Section 40 of the Employment Act, on the statutory procedure, and the substantive justification test. Whether the Terms of Separation and Release Agreement bar the Claimant’s claim 58.The Respondent placed considerable reliance on the separation agreement signed on 14th January 2024. For starters, the mere fact that the Claimant signed the agreement does not automatically dispose of the claim. The Court of Appeal in Thomas De La Rue (K) Ltd v Omutelema [2013] KECA 492 (KLR) held that a discharge voucher does not, by itself, absolve an employer from statutory obligations or prevent the Court from examining whether a termination was fair. 59.Similarly, in Coastal Bottlers Ltd v Kimathi Mithika [2018] KECA 523 (KLR), the Court of Appeal recognized that a settlement agreement can be binding where it was freely and willingly executed with the full knowledge of the relevant facts and without fraud, coercion or other vitiating circumstances. 60.By dint of the foregoing decisions, it follows that a genuine settlement agreement should ordinarily be respected, but it cannot automatically immunize an employer from statutory scrutiny of an allegedly unfair termination. 61.In my view, and considering the facts of this case, I will be slow to treat the parties’ agreement as a complete bar since the termination letter had already been issued on 12th January 2024 18 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 18 of 25

before the separation agreement was executed. I also note that the agreement was signed only two days later, and payment was conditional upon signing of the separation agreement. 62.RW1 further admitted that acceptance could not legitimize an unlawful process, and the Claimant specifically challenged the fairness of the redundancy. 63.Further, the Claimant's allegation that he signed the separation agreement because he needed the money to support his family is, standing alone, not sufficient to establish common law economic duress. Economic pressure is not automatically coercion. However, it does support the conclusion that the agreement should not be construed as an absolute waiver of mandatory statutory protections. 64.In the circumstances, I reach the conclusion that the agreement may constitute evidence of payment and settlement of contractual/terminal dues, but it does not prevent this Court from determining whether the redundancy complied with the Employment Act. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought 65.Section 49 of the Employment Act requires the Court in making an award of compensation for unfair termination to consider the statutory factors, termination, length including of the service, circumstances reasonable surrounding expectation of continued employment, opportunities for securing alternative 19 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 19 of 25

employment, the employee's conduct, and the extent to which the employee contributed to the termination. 66.Compensation must generally be proportionate to the circumstances and the statutory factors. In the present case, the Claimant gave the Respondent approximately 7 years of service in a senior position. It is also evident that he was not issued a statutory redundancy notice, and he was not given a meaningful opportunity to make representations. 67.It is, however, significant that the Claimant received terminal benefits and executed a separation agreement. 68.In the circumstances, I deem an award of five months' salary sufficient compensation for the unfair termination on account of redundancy. 69.On the claim for salary for the remainder of the employment period, it is now settled that an employee cannot ordinarily recover future salary as a separate head of damages merely because he expected to remain employed. In Ol Pejeta Ranching Ltd v David Wanjau Muhoro [2017] KECA 329 (KLR), the Court of Appeal emphasized the need to justify each remedy and rejected the notion that compensation should simply be treated as payment for the period an employee expected to remain employed. 20 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 20 of 25

70.In my view, such an award, if made in addition to the award of compensation for unfair termination, would risk compensating the Claimant twice for the same loss. 71.The claim therefore fails and is dismissed. 72.On the claim of house allowance for the period of employment, Section 31 of the Employment Act obliges an employer to provide reasonable housing or pay housing allowance, unless the contract expressly consolidates a housing element into the employee's wage/salary. 73.The Court of Appeal in Grain Pro Kenya Inc. Ltd v Andrew Waithaka Kiragu [2019] KECA 563 (KLR), held that where the employment contract does not state that salary is inclusive of house allowance, a payslip describing the amount as "gross" does not necessarily cure the omission. 74.The Respondent therefore cannot simply rely on the fact that the Claimant earned Kshs.870,000 gross. It was obligated to demonstrate, from the contract or applicable terms, that the salary was expressly consolidated to include the housing component, which it did not. 75.The employment contract produced in evidence provides the salary as ‘basic salary’, which is a clear indication that the Claimant’s salary was not consolidated as alleged by the Respondent. 21 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 21 of 25

76.The Claimant’s claim in this respect therefore succeeds and is allowed as prayed. 77.On the claim to vest the remainder of the Claimant’s 98.62 shares, or payment of their monetary value, this claim should in my view be treated as a contractual entitlement under the ESOP rules, rather than principally as a legitimate expectation claim. 78.The Respondent's evidence was that awards depended upon the employee's role and that vesting occurred over four years, making continued employment a condition of vesting, and cash settlement depended upon an exit event recognized by the scheme. 79.In a letter dated 12th January, 2024 to the Claimant, the Respondent informed the Claimant of the portion of his shares that had vested in accordance with the Respondent’s company ESOP Policy. The units that had vested upon departure were stated to be 164.38, and whose value was calculated and paid as part of the terminal dues. 80.The Claimant did not lead evidence to show that the scheme rules provide for accelerated vesting on redundancy, and the Court, in the circumstances, cannot rewrite the ESOP contract. 81.The Claimant’s claims in respect of prayers (i) and (j) fail and are hereby dismissed. 22 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 22 of 25

82.On the claim for constitutional damages, the Claimant seeks general and exemplary damages for violation of constitutional rights. From the court record, there is no evidence of discrimination, malice, victimization, humiliation or other conduct of the kind that would justify an independent award of exemplary or aggravated damages. 83.The appropriate remedy for the established wrong is therefore only the statutory compensation under Section 49 of the Employment Act, together with any proved contractual/statutory dues which the court has already awarded. 84.Prayer (f) for separate general and exemplary constitutional damages is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 85.On the prayer for issuance of a certificate of service, the Claimant is entitled to a certificate of service under Section 51 of the Employment Act, irrespective of the reason for the separation. 86.In the final analysis, the Claimant’s Claim succeeds in terms of the following orders:a) A declaration that the Claimant’s termination on account of redundancy was unfair and unlawful. b) That the Respondent pays the Claimant: i. Five months' salary as compensation for the unfair termination at Kshs. 4,350,000/- ii. Unpaid house allowance for the period of service at Kshs. 11,536,200/- 23 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 23 of 25

c) That the Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a certificate of service within 14 days of this Judgment. d) The Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit and interest on (b) above from the date of Judgment until payment in full. 24 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 24 of 25

87.Judgment of the Court. SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. C. N. BAARI JUDGE Appearance: Mr. Sakari Kibiti h/b for Mr. Wanyama for the Claimant Ms. Mutai present for the Respondent Ms. Esther S- C/A 25 |JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. E178 OF 2024

page 25 of 25