Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers Workers v Magunas Supermarket Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E029 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 251 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Fixed-term contracts that expire on their own are not unfair terminations, but Kenyan employers who keep no leave or wage records will pay employees' claimed figures.
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 termination of the grievants' contracts of service was unfair and unlawful.
- 2.Whether the reliefs sought by the claimant are merited.
Key legal issues
#Whether the grievants' contracts were unfairly and unlawfully terminated
No - the fixed-term contracts lapsed automatically by effluxion of time on 28th February 2023 and 5th March 2023 respectively
Section 45(1) and (2) of the Employment Act prohibits unfair termination and places the burden on the employer to prove validity, fair reason and fair procedure. The 1st grievant did not produce the alleged contract said to have been prematurely terminated, and signed a reminder confirming his contract was due to lapse on 28th February 2023. The 2nd grievant confirmed being served with a reminder that her contract had expired and would not be renewed. Both contracts therefore expired by effluxion of time.
Whether the claim for accrued leave was merited
Yes - leave days as prayed (16.75 and 17.5 days) awarded because the employer did not file leave records to rebut the claimant's computation
The separation letters computed accrued leave as 11.5 days and 17.5 days respectively, but the employer failed to file leave records to rebut the claimant's computation or explain how it arrived at the figures in the letters. In the absence of rebuttal, the court accepted the claimant's figures and awarded the leave as prayed, converting the days to monetary value based on the grievants' salary.
Whether underpayment of wages was merited
Partially - awarded only for the 3 years prior to filing, computed at Kshs.3,751.10 per month for 20 months (Kshs.75,022 each)
Underpayment claims are subject to the limitation period of 3 years under section 90 of the Employment Act. The suit was filed on 18th July 2024, so the claim could only reach back to July 2021. The grievants earned a gross salary of Kshs.15,693 against the applicable wage of Kshs.19,444.10, a shortfall of Kshs.3,751.10 per month over 20 months, yielding Kshs.75,022 for each grievant.
Whether the overtime claim was merited
No - declined as exaggerated, lacking particulars and supporting evidence
Although the grievants testified they worked from 7.00am to 9.00pm without compensation, the pleadings computed overtime at 4 hours per day over periods far exceeding the 3-year limitation window. The court noted the grievants took their annual leave save for a few days, indicating they did not work daily without break. The claim was therefore found exaggerated and unsupported, and was declined in its entirety.
Legal principles established
#- Under section 45 of the Employment Act, an employer bears the burden of proving a valid reason and fair procedure for termination; where a fixed-term contract lapses by effluxion of time, there is no unfair termination.
- Underpayment claims are subject to the 3-year limitation period under section 90 of the Employment Act.
- An employer who fails to produce leave records cannot rebut a claimant's computation of accrued leave.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the claimant for the 1st grievant: leave 16.75 days Kshs.9,440.25 and underpayment 20 months Kshs.75,022.00, total Kshs.84,462.25
- 2.Judgment entered for the claimant for the 2nd grievant: leave 17.5 days Kshs.9,862.95 and underpayment 20 months Kshs.75,022.00, total Kshs.84,884.95
- 3.Costs awarded to the claimant at Lower court rates
- 4.Interest at court rates from the date of filing the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and the Labour Relations Act (trade dispute referred after conciliation)
Relief refused
#One-month notice pay and 12 months' compensation for unlawful termination (1st grievant)
Contracts lapsed automatically by effluxion of time, not terminated by the employer
Two months' salary for unexpired term of the 1st grievant's contract
Contract expired by effluxion of time
Overtime pay for both grievants
Claim exaggerated, lacks proper particulars and supporting evidence, and limited to 3 years; grievants took their annual leave
Costs
The claimant is awarded costs at Lower court rates because of the quantum of the damages awarded; interest at court rates from date of filing the suit.
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.
By signing the letter, he confirmed that his contract was due to lapse on 28th February 2023. Consequently, I find that the contract for the 1st grievant lapsed automatically by efiuxion of time on 28th February 2023.
I proceed to hold that the claimant has failed to prove on a balance of probability that the respondent terminated the contracts of service for the grievants unfairly and unlawfully.
The employer did not file leave records to rebut the computation by the claimant or to show how it arrived at the leave days in the separation letters.
The claim for underpayment is also granted based on the applicable Wage Orders and limitation period of 3 years under section 90 of the Employment Act.
I find that the claim for overtime is exaggerated, lacks proper particulars and supporting evidence, and it is declined.
The claimant is awarded costs at Lower court rates because of the quantum of the damages awarded. The claimant will have interest at court rates from date of filing the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The court awards underpayment computed at Kshs.19,444.10 - 15,693 = Kshs.3,751.10 per month (the 2022 Wage Order rate), yet the conclusion states the award is based on 'basic salary of Kshs.16,907.90 pursuant to 2018 Wage Order', which would yield a different differential.
Internal arithmetic inconsistencies in the pleaded underpayment schedules (e.g. totals of 45,013.20 repeated against differing multipliers and monthly differentials such as 13.40 x12 expressed as 45,013.20).
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.
- SGA Security Solutions Ltd v Kasanya (Appeal E079 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2683 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2683 (KLR)2 Oct 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers Workers v Magunas Supermarket Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E029 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 251 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 19th June 2024 (ELRC, Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/251/eng@2025-02-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.