Pascal Lucas Mwabuni & 2 others v Pentagon Elite Security Services Limited [2020] KEELRC 1581 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded two security guards house allowance and leave pay but dismissed their unfair termination claims because their evidence lacked corroboration.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimants proved unlawful termination of employment
Not proved; the claims for damages and notice pay were dismissed
The 1st and 3rd Claimants testified that the 2nd Claimant, their supervisor, had called to inform them their employment was terminated. However, the 2nd Claimant did not testify to corroborate this. Under Section 47(5) of the Employment Act, the employee bears the burden of proving unfair termination, and the court held that this burden cannot be discharged by the uncorroborated word of the affected employee. The termination claim therefore failed.
Entitlement to house allowance and leave pay
Allowed; house allowance at 15% of basic salary and leave pay for unutilised leave
Section 31(1) and (2) of the Employment Act obliges the employer to provide housing or pay a sufficient sum as rent, unless the contract consolidates a housing element into the wage. There was no evidence that the salary paid included house allowance, so house allowance was awarded at 15% of basic salary. There were also no leave records showing the Claimants had utilised their annual leave, so the leave claim succeeded.
Claims for gratuity, rest days and public holidays
Dismissed as not proved and without basis
The court found that no basis was laid for the claim for gratuity and that the claims for rest days and public holidays were not proved. These heads therefore failed and were dismissed, in contrast to the house allowance and leave claims which succeeded on the available evidence.
Legal principles established
#- An employee alleging unlawful termination bears the burden of proving the unfair termination under Section 47(5) of the Employment Act, and that burden cannot be discharged by the uncorroborated word of the affected employee.
- In the absence of leave records showing utilisation of annual leave, a claim for accrued leave succeeds.
- Where there is no evidence that salary was inclusive of house allowance, house allowance is awarded at 15% of basic salary under Section 31 of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the 1st Claimant, Pascal Lucas Mwabuni, of Kshs. 64,908 (house allowance Kshs. 44,850; leave pay Kshs. 15,698; pro-rata leave Kshs. 4,360)
- 2.Judgment entered in favour of the 3rd Claimant, Lennox Kazungu Mwabaya, of Kshs. 64,908 (house allowance Kshs. 44,850; leave pay Kshs. 15,698; pro-rata leave Kshs. 4,360)
- 3.Amounts awarded to attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 4.The 1st and 3rd Claimants to have the costs of the case
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment claims (Employment Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Nangabo v Sana Industries Limited & another (Cause E430 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2117 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2117 (KLR)16 Jul 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pascal Lucas Mwabuni & 2 others v Pentagon Elite Security Services Limited [2020] KEELRC 1581 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 22nd February 2018, filed 28th February 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1581/eng@2020-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.