Indako v Securex Agencies (K) Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E008 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4649 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Machakos employment appeal failed because the employee's Facebook posts about a client justified fair dismissal, and unproved overtime claims cannot succeed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of employment was lawful and fair
The termination was both substantively and procedurally fair; the appellant's insubordination, absenteeism and unremorseful Facebook posts justified summary dismissal under section 44 of the Employment Act
The appellant admitted posting offensive Facebook content about the client without remorse, failed to respond in disciplinary proceedings, and never returned to work after the postings. The reasons for termination existed under section 43, and the process passed the fairness test under sections 41 and 45(2), covering both substantive and procedural fairness. The trial court's findings were supported by documents and consistent with the appellant's cross-examination, so no basis existed to interfere.
Whether the trial court erred in failing to award the relief sought (overtime, gratuity, notice pay and compensation)
The appeal on relief failed: notice pay and compensation were not due given lawful termination; gratuity was paid; the overtime claim was not strictly proved
Having upheld lawful and fair termination, notice payment and compensation were not payable. The appellant admitted in cross-examination that the payslip showed and that he was paid overtime, and he bore the burden of proving extra hours beyond that; he made no claim during employment. Gratuity of Kshs.62,000 was conceded as paid and the issue was not pursued on appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Burden of proving unfair termination rests on the employee, while the burden of justifying the grounds for termination rests on the employer (section 47(5) Employment Act)
- Overtime is special damages and must be proved strictly
- A first appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- 3.The file is marked as closed
- On appeal from
- Magistrates Court (Mavoko)
- Mavoko MCELRC No. 126 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over appeal from Mavoko MCELRC No. 126 of 2019 (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Indako v Securex Agencies (K) Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E008 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4649 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Machakos ELRCA No. E008 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4649/eng@2026-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.