Abdulrahman v Transafrica Motors Limited (Civil Appeal E141 of 2023) [2026] KECA 912 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld a three months' salary award for unfair redundancy, ruling that discrimination within a flawed termination cannot win extra damages without separate evidence.
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 learned Judge erred by not awarding compensation as prayed, and by awarding damages of three months' salary instead of the amount claimed
- 2.whether the learned Judge erred by not awarding the appellant costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELRC erred in awarding only three months' salary and failing to grant separate compensation for wrongful termination
No. The award was a discretionary exercise under section 49; the appellant failed to demonstrate misdirection, misapprehension, or that the decision was plainly wrong.
Section 49 confers discretion on the ELRC to grant any or all remedies for unfair or wrongful termination, guided by section 49(4). The Court of Appeal may interfere with such discretion only on the established grounds (misdirection in law, misapprehension of facts, irrelevant or omitted considerations, or plain wrongness). The appellant established none. The Court also held that discrimination inherent in the flawed redundancy process was not a distinct infringement warranting additional remedies under section 12(3) of the ELRC Act, and no evidence of distinct acts of harassment or rights infringement was adduced.
Whether the ELRC erred in declining to award the appellant costs of the suit
No. Although the Judge gave no reasons, the appellant's claim of Kshs. 18,038,904 substantially failed, justifying departure from the general rule that costs follow the event.
The general rule is that costs follow the event, but a court may depart from it for good reason. The appellant sued for a substantial sum which was dismissed; the compensation awarded was insignificant compared to his global claim, and the respondent's defence succeeded to a significant extent save for the discriminatory conduct. The Court held it could not fault the Judge's direction that each party bear their own costs, despite the absence of reasons.
Legal principles established
#- A court of appeal will not interfere with a lower court's discretionary award under section 49 of the Employment Act unless misdirection in law, misapprehension of facts, consideration of irrelevant matters, failure to consider relevant matters, or plain wrongness is established
- Section 49 remedies for unfair or wrongful termination apply once a court finds termination unfair or wrongful, and the judge has discretion to grant any or all of the remedies thereunder
- Remedies beyond section 49 under section 12(3) of the ELRC Act require a proper evidentiary and pleadings basis to justify the additional relief
- Discrimination embedded in a flawed redundancy/termination process cannot be extricated as a distinct infringement deserving separate remedies
- Costs follow the event, but a court may depart from that rule for good reasons, including where a claim substantially fails
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Judgment of the ELRC (Monica Mbaru, J.) dated 25th May 2023 upheld
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- ELRC Case No. E059 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal from the ELRC under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act framework (court exercising its mandate on first appeal)
Relief refused
#Compensation for unlawful termination equivalent to twelve months' salary (Kshs. 693,804)
The trial court's exercise of discretion in awarding three months' salary was not shown to be wrong; no basis for interference established
General damages for harassment, discrimination and constitutional infringement of Kshs. 2,081,412
The discriminatory selection was part of the flawed termination process, not a distinct infringement, and no evidence of distinct acts was adduced
Costs of the suit in the ELRC
The claim of Kshs. 18,038,904 substantially failed; special circumstances justified departure from costs-follow-the-event
Costs
Each party bears their own costs of the appeal; the trial court's order that each party bear their own costs of the suit was upheld
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.
Having carefully considered the record of appeal, the grounds on which it was anchored, the rival submissions of learned counsel, the cited authorities and the law, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
In exercise of our discretion upon consideration of the nature of the dispute, we hereby order and direct that each party bears their own costs of the appeal.
Such discrimination cannot be extricated from the termination process so as to be viewed as a distinct and separate infringement deserving of further reliefs.
a proper basis must be laid to justify the grant of additional remedies beyond those specifically provided for under section 49 of the Act.
It is a strong thing for an appellate court to difier from the finding, on a question of fact, of the judge who tried the case and who has had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.
where a trial court has exercised its discretion on costs, an appellate court should not interfere unless the discretion has been exercised unjudicially or on wrong principles.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated and delivered 15th May 2026 but Memorandum of Appeal is dated 19th June 2023 while the hearing is recorded as 17th December 2025; also internal numbering skips paragraph 31 and duplicates '32.'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abdulrahman v Transafrica Motors Limited (Civil Appeal E141 of 2023) [2026] KECA 912 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Court of Appeal at Mombasa, appeal against ELRC Case No. E059 of 2022 (Memorandum of Appeal dated 19th June 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/912/eng@2026-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.