Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 185 (KLR)

Nguli & another v Manpower Networks Limited (Cause 1641 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 185 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
31 January 2025
JRJames Rika
1,039 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st and 2nd Claimants, former Loaders and General Workers employed by the Respondent on one-year contracts from 2011, were informed on 28th June 2017 that there was no more work. They claimed severance pay, notice pay, salary for June 2017, off-duty days, 12 months' compensation for unfair termination and, by amendment, house allowance arrears over 66 months. The Respondent maintained that terminal dues were offered but declined, and that the Claimants were summarily dismissed rather than made redundant. The 2nd Claimant's claim was struck out on 21st November 2023, having been compromised by payment of Kshs. 20,000 without his Advocate's knowledge. The 1st Claimant gave evidence, conceding that on 4th April 2019, while the claim was pending in court, he received Kshs. 21,000 from the Respondent and signed a form acknowledging the payment as full and final settlement, discharging the Respondent from further claims. He explained that his house had been locked for non-payment of rent, leaving him no option. The Court held that the effect of executing the discharge was that he compromised his claim; the allegation of a locked house was unsupported by evidence, and as a represented party he ought to have consulted his Advocate. Upholding the discharge, the Court found the claim settled, declined to consider whether termination was unfair as that would strain judicial economy, marked the Claim as settled, and made no order on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 1st Claimant's discharge of the Respondent bars his claim

Holding

Yes. By accepting Kshs. 21,000 as full and final payment and signing a discharge while the claim was pending, the 1st Claimant compromised his claim; the Court upholds the discharge.

Reasoning

The 1st Claimant conceded receiving Kshs. 21,000 during the pendency of the claim and signing a form acknowledging full and final settlement. As a represented party he ought to have consulted his Advocate before executing the discharge. His assertion that his house was locked, compelling him to accept payment, was unsupported by evidence. The Court held it would strain judicial economy to consider whether termination was unfair, and marked the claim as settled.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee who accepts payment in full and final settlement and executes a discharge, even while a claim is pending in court, compromises the claim and cannot pursue the remedies.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claim shall be marked as settled, the 1st Claimant having received Kshs. 21,000 from the Respondent
  2. 2.No order on the costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment claims; disposed under Practice Direction 6[2] of the Electronic Case Management Practice Directions, 2020

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nguli & another v Manpower Networks Limited (Cause 1641 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 185 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/185/eng@2025-01-31

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