Okode v Tejani (Cause 980 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 280 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer who claimed a house help absconded lost in court because he never contacted her directly or issued a termination notice.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was unfair
The termination was unfair because the employer failed to prove abscondment and neither contacted the Claimant nor issued her a termination notice
The employer only wrote to the County Labour Office notifying it of alleged abscondment. The court held that an employer alleging abscondment must prove efforts to trace the employee. The Claimant needing union help to collect her belongings suggested she intended to return to work. The employer never wrote to the Claimant directly or issued any termination notice citing abscondment. Consequently the separation amounted to unfair termination under the Employment Act.
Whether the Claimant was underpaid
No underpayment was proved; her Kshs. 11,000/- salary exceeded the statutory minimum wage for a house servant
Applying the Regulations of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order applicable in 2015, a house servant was entitled to a consolidated monthly wage of Kshs. 10,954/-. Since the Claimant earned Kshs. 11,000/- consolidated salary, she was paid above the statutory minimum and the underpayment claim failed.
What compensation is appropriate for the unfair termination
Five months' salary was awarded as sufficient compensation under Sections 49 and 50 of the Employment Act
Unfair termination entitled the Claimant to compensation under Sections 49 and 50 of the Employment Act. Guided by the factors in Section 49(4), and considering in particular the opportunities available to the Claimant to secure comparable or suitable employment elsewhere, the court deemed five months' salary at Kshs. 11,000/- per month sufficient compensation.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employer alleges that an employee absconded duty, the employer bears the burden to prove it made an effort to trace the employee before declaring the employment terminated
- Writing only to the labour office, without contacting the employee or issuing a termination notice, is insufficient to establish abscondment
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Claimant was unfairly terminated
- 2.Payment of one month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 11,000/-
- 3.Five months’ salary as compensation for the unfair termination at Kshs. 55,000/-
- 4.Costs of the suit and interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (Sections 44, 49 and 50 referred to)
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.
- Aron v Bokhol Transporters Limited (Appeal E185 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 805 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 805 (KLR)13 Mar 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okode v Tejani (Cause 980 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 280 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/280/eng@2025-02-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.