Karanja v Taphe Guest House (Civil Appeal 196 of 2019) [2026] KECA 372 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that employees only need a low-threshold prima facie case to prove unfair termination, shifting the burden to employers to justify dismissal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether, on a proper evaluation of the evidence on record and correct appreciation of the law, the trial court erred in holding that it could not determine which of the parties terminated the employment and that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of showing that his termination was wrongful or unfair
- 2.Whether the termination of the appellant's employment was substantively fair
- 3.Whether the termination was procedurally fair in compliance with section 41 of the Employment Act
- 4.Whether the appellant walked out of, or deserted, his employment as contended by the respondent
- 5.What remedies, if any, the appellant is entitled to
Key legal issues
#Burden of proof in unfair termination claims
The ELRC erred in holding that the appellant failed to discharge his burden; the burden required only that the employee make out a prima facie case of unfair termination
The Court, as a first appellate court, re-evaluated the evidence. The respondent admitted the existence of the employment contract, its own witness conceded no notice was given per the contract, and the evidence showed the respondent denied the appellant access to the premises. That constituted a prima facie case of termination not within the law, shifting the burden to the employer to justify the grounds and procedure, which it failed to do.
Substantive fairness of the termination
The termination was substantively unfair because the respondent produced no evidence of the misconduct alleged
Beyond allegations of lack of qualification, fraud and mismanagement, the respondent adduced no evidence of misconduct. Although it claimed to have commissioned an audit report disclosing irregularities, no such report was produced in court. In the absence of evidence of valid reasons for termination, the termination could not be substantively fair.
Procedural fairness under section 41 of the Employment Act
The termination was procedurally unfair; the respondent did not comply with the mandatory hearing requirements of section 41(1)
Relying on Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui and New Kenya Co-operative Creameries Ltd v Olga Auma Adede, the Court restated the four elements of a fair procedure under section 41, including an oral explanation in the presence of another employee of the employee's choice and consideration of representations. Beyond asking the appellant to give a satisfactory explanation within seven days, the respondent did not afford such a hearing.
Whether the appellant deserted his employment
The evidence did not show that the appellant walked out; it was the respondent who constructively terminated the employment by denying him access
The Court reasoned that if the appellant had absconded, the respondent would have written to him promptly rather than wait to be prompted by the appellant's advocates' letter of 12th March 2012 seeking confirmation of his employment status. That letter prompted the respondent to give belated reasons for intended termination, which the Court treated as an ex-post facto attempt to bring the respondent within the law.
Quantum of compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act
Compensation of two months' salary (Kshs. 60,000.00) was adequate, having regard to the contract period, the brief service, the salary level and the employee's contribution
Section 49 empowers the court to award up to twelve months' wages, guided by the factors in section 49(3), including circumstances of termination, employee contribution, length of service and conduct. Following CMC Aviation Ltd v Mohammed Noor and Kiambaa Dairy Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd v Rhoda Njeri, the Court held that the maximum award is reserved for the most egregious cases; with only slightly over a month of service on a Kshs. 30,000 monthly salary, two months' compensation was adequate.
Legal principles established
#- The employee's burden of proving wrongful or unfair termination is discharged by establishing a prima facie case, which is a fairly low threshold
- Section 41 of the Employment Act lays down mandatory minimum procedural standards, including an oral hearing in the presence of another employee of the employee's choice; non-compliance renders a termination procedurally unfair
- An employer bears the duty to adduce evidence justifying the grounds of termination; unsubstantiated allegations such as fraud or mismanagement, unsupported by evidence such as the claimed audit report, render a termination substantively unfair
- The maximum compensation of twelve months' salary for wrongful or unfair termination is reserved for the most egregious cases and awards must be justified on the parameters set out in section 49 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed
- 2.Award of compensation of Kshs. 60,000.00 equivalent of two months' salary, in addition to the salary for February 2012 and certificate of service
- 3.The amounts awarded shall attract interest at court rates
- 4.Appellant to have costs of this appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment & Labour Relations Court, Nairobi
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal (not expressly stated; the Court describes the matter as 'a first appeal')
Relief refused
#Salary for the unexpired remainder of the three-year contract (Kshs. 1,020,000 claimed)
The issue was not addressed by the parties and was therefore not before the Court; the Court only noted in passing the Supreme Court's rejection of anticipatory salaries in Ngokonyo v Telkom Kenya Ltd
Twelve months' salary as damages for wrongful termination (Kshs. 360,000 claimed)
Compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act is discretionary and must be guided by the statutory factors, including length of service; the appellant had worked only slightly over one month
Costs
The appellant shall have costs of this appeal
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.
Being a first appeal, we bear in mind our obligation to re-evaluate and reappraise the evidence on record so as to come to our own independent conclusions.
That burden merely required the appellant to make out a prima facie case, namely a case that could have succeeded without a response by the respondent, which is a fairly low threshold.
In the circumstances and in the absence of evidence of valid reasons for termination of the employment, we cannot say that the termination was substantively fair.
From the record, there was no evidence that the respondent complied with section 41 of the Act, which renders the termination of the appellant procedurally unfair.
We are satisfied that it is the respondent who constructively terminated the appellant's employment by denying him access to the guest house, and that the letter of 12th March 2012 was a belated ex-post facto attempt to bring the respondent within the law.
For all the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and award the appellant compensation of Kshs. 60,000.00 equivalent of two month's salary, in addition to the salary for February 2012 and certificate of service. The amounts shall attract interest at court rates and the appellant shall have costs of this appeal. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains typographical errors, e.g. 'oiered' for 'offered' and 'confirm of his employment status' for 'confirmation of his employment status', likely from OCR of the certified copy
The quoted passage from Naima Khamis v. Oxford University Press (EA) Ltd appears not to be closed with a closing quotation mark in the text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karanja v Taphe Guest House (Civil Appeal 196 of 2019) [2026] KECA 372 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/372/eng@2026-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.