Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCourt of Appeal at Nairobi (appeal against ELRC judgment; memorandum of appeal dated 17th April 2020)· [2026] KECA 1649 (KLR)

Ishmael Omula Egala & 7 others v The Attorney General

Court of Appeal of Kenya
31 July 2026
SKS. Gatembu KairuGOG.V. OdungaHOH.I. Ong'udi
6,088 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~24 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that the Employment Act, 2007 does not apply to terminations that happened before it came into force.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Eight former meteorological assistants retrenched on 31st August 2000 by the Public Service Commission sued in the Employment and Labour Relations Court, where the trial Judge awarded each claimant three months' salary as compensation plus Kshs. 500,000/= exemplary damages, having found the retrenchment unlawful. The appellants appealed on seventeen grounds, principally that the Judge wrongly applied the repealed Employment Act (Cap 226) instead of the Employment Act, 2007, wrongly rejected their claim for twelve months' notice, awarded inadequate exemplary damages, and failed to award interest and costs of the assessment proceedings. The Court of Appeal framed four issues. On the first, it held that statutes are presumed prospective; the Employment Act, 2007, which commenced on 2nd June 2008, created no retrospective rights, so the appellants' claims, having accrued in 2000, were governed exclusively by the repealed Employment Act, Cap 226. On the second, it held the trial Judge had addressed the issues and given reasoned findings, and that submissions do not constitute evidence. On the third, it held that compensation under section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act, 2007 is discretionary and capped at, but not automatically set at, twelve months' salary; the appellants had been reinstated with salary arrears and failed to discharge the burden justifying the maximum, and filed no cross-appeal. On the fourth, applying Rookes v Barnard, it found the exemplary damages award not inordinately low, and held that interest and costs lie within the trial court's discretion, which was not shown to have been exercised injudiciously. The appeal was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Retrospective application of the Employment Act, 2007

Holding

The trial Judge correctly applied the repealed Employment Act, Cap 226, as the appellants' retrenchment predated the commencement of the Employment Act, 2007 on 2nd June 2008

Reasoning

Statutes are presumed prospective unless expressly made retrospective. The Employment Act, 2007 contains no retrospective provision and created new rights and remedies unknown under the repealed Act. The appellants' cause of action accrued on retrenchment in August 2000, before commencement, so their claims had to be determined exclusively under the repealed Employment Act.

p. 8
02

Whether pleadings, evidence and submissions were adequately considered

Holding

No error demonstrated; the Judge identified the issues and rendered reasoned findings, and submissions cannot take the place of evidence

Reasoning

The record showed the Judge identified the issues arising from the pleadings and gave reasons. A trial court need not reproduce every submission or piece of evidence. An appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless the court acted on no evidence, misapprehended the evidence, or reached a plainly wrong conclusion; no such error was shown.

p. 9
03

Measure of damages for unlawful retrenchment

Holding

The award of three months' gross salary was a proper exercise of discretion; no entitlement to twelve months' compensation arose under the applicable repealed law

Reasoning

Compensation for unfair termination under section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act, 2007 is discretionary, capped at twelve months but not automatically payable at the maximum. The Judge considered the circumstances, including that the appellants had been reinstated and paid salary arrears. The appellants failed to discharge the burden of showing circumstances warranting the maximum, and filed no cross-appeal.

p. 11
04

Exemplary damages, interest and costs

Holding

The award of Kshs. 500,000/= exemplary damages per claimant and the orders on interest and costs were within the trial court's discretion and disclosed no misdirection

Reasoning

Exemplary damages are awarded only in narrow categories, including oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by servants of the government. The Judge appreciated the punitive character of the award and considered the respondent's conduct. Interest and costs are discretionary; appellate interference requires capricious exercise or wrong principles, none of which was shown.

p. 12

Legal principles established

#
  • Statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless Parliament expressly provides otherwise; the Employment Act, 2007 cannot be applied to employment relationships terminated before its commencement
  • Causes of action accruing before the commencement of the Employment Act, 2007 are governed by the repealed Employment Act, Cap 226
  • Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act, 2007 provides a maximum of twelve months' gross salary but does not create an automatic entitlement to the maximum award
  • A trial court is not under a duty to reproduce every submission or piece of evidence in its judgment so long as it addresses the issues and arrives at a reasoned determination
  • An appellate court will not interfere with an award of damages unless the trial court acted on a wrong principle, took into account irrelevant considerations, failed to consider relevant matters, or the award is so inordinately low or high as to be an entirely erroneous estimate

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Civil Case No. 1512 of 2002 (lead file) and a companion suit
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal under Rule 31(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ishmael Omula Egala & 7 others v The Attorney General", Case Analysis (2026). Court of Appeal at Nairobi (appeal against ELRC judgment; memorandum of appeal dated 17th April 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1649/eng@2026-07-31

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.