Obachi v Gain Security Services (Cause 982 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 3181 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a security guard over Kshs 225,000 because his employer fired him without reason, notice, or a hearing — and never defended the case.
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 Claimant was unfairly and unlawfully terminated.
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was substantively justified
Not justified - no valid and fair reason was given or proved.
The Respondent did not enter appearance, file a response or participate despite service. The Claimant, an employee of 7 years proven by work identity card and bank statements, was given no notice or warning and no reason for termination despite inquiring at the Respondent's offices. Section 43 places the burden on the employer to prove valid and fair reasons; failure renders termination unfair under section 45.
Whether the termination was procedurally fair
Procedurally flawed and unfair under section 45 of the Employment Act.
The Claimant was never given notice, a warning, a show-cause letter or a disciplinary hearing as required by section 41 of the Employment Act. The Respondent declined to participate in the proceedings and so did not rebut these allegations. Following Janet Nyandiko and Walter Anuro, fairness requires both substantive justification and procedural fairness; both were absent here.
Legal principles established
#- The employer bears the burden of proving a valid and fair reason for termination; failure to do so renders the termination unfair.
- Termination must be both substantively justified and procedurally fair.
Court orders
#- 1.One month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 15,000/=
- 2.Annual leave Kshs 60,123.00
- 3.Compensation for unfair and unlawful termination of 10 months' salary, Kshs 150,000/=
- 4.Total award of Kshs 225,123/= with costs to the Claimant
- 5.Certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act if not already given
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment claim under the Employment Act, 2007
Relief refused
#Compensation for wrongful and unfair termination of 12 months' salary
The court awarded 10 months instead, taking into account the 7 years of service and the Respondent's refusal to participate in the proceedings.
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the Claimant.
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.
I am guided by Section 43 which requires the employer to prove the reason for termination; the reason must be valid and fair and if the employer fails prove so the termination shall be deemed unfair under Section 45 of the Act.
A mandatory and elaborate process is then set up under section 41 requiring notification and hearing before termination.
In conclusion the Claimants’ claim is allowed as illustrated below with costs to the Claimant.
a. One Month notice Kshs 15,000/= b. Annual Leave Kshs 60,123.00 c. 10 months Compensation for unfair and unlawful termination Kshs 150,000/= Total Kshs 225,123/=
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The claim's total in the statement of claim (Kshs 255,123.00) is arithmetically inconsistent with its components (15,000 + 60,123 + 180,000 = 255,123), so consistent; however the judgment's own award total is the same as its components (225,123). The date of delivery reads '5TH DAY DECEMBER, 2023' with missing 'OF'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Obachi v Gain Security Services (Cause 982 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 3181 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3181/eng@2023-12-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.