Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMombasa ELRC Appeal (from CM ELRC No.424 of 2021)· [2025] KEELRC 333 (KLR)

Security Alert Services Limited v Kebuko (Appeal E114 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 333 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
6 February 2025
2,676 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that employers who skip written contracts and proper termination process will pay, and a discharge note won't shield them.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal against the judgment of the learned magistrate in Mombasa CM ELRC No.424 of 2021, delivered on 7 May 2024, which found that the appellant unfairly terminated the respondent's employment and awarded Ksh.528,938.48 plus costs. The respondent claimed she was employed as a day guard from February 2013 (deployed 2014) at Ksh.6,800 per month and terminated without notice in July 2020, and claimed notice pay, house allowance, overtime, rest days, underpayments and compensation. The appellant asserted two separate contracts punctuated by resignations and a mutual separation recorded in a Discharge Note dated 11 February 2021. On appeal, the court held it was duty-bound to re-evaluate the entire record. It found the alleged resignation notices were never attached, that employment commenced on 1 March 2014 and ran continuously for 8 years, and that the respondent became protected under Section 37 of the Employment Act. The Discharge Note could not bar claims under Section 35(4). The court affirmed that an employee who abandons employment does not dismiss herself; the employer must formally terminate with due process under Sections 44 and 18(5)(b). Applying Section 89, continuing-injury claims (house allowance, overtime, rest days) were confined to the 12 months before cessation, and the claim filed on 30 June 2021 was in time. The court reviewed the judgment, affirming compensation and notice pay, and adding overtime of Ksh.121,672, rest days of Ksh.5,822.40 and house allowance of Ksh.24,431.22, with trial court costs retained and the appellant to meet 25% of the respondent's costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Continuity of employment and duration of service

Holding

The respondent worked continuously for 8 years from 1 March 2014; the alleged resignations were not proved and no termination notices were attached

Reasoning

The appellant asserted two contracts each ending with resignation, but no resignation notices were attached. Employment commenced February/March 2014 with no letter of resignation or termination. The Discharge Note's admission of Ksh.3,500 terminal dues confirmed employment. The court found the trial magistrate's finding of 8 years of service correct.

p. 5
02

Effect of the Discharge Note / mutual separation agreement

Holding

The Discharge Note could not discharge the appellant from lawful claims, including the right to dispute fairness of termination under Section 35(4)

Reasoning

Section 35(4) preserves the employee's right to dispute the lawfulness or fairness of termination. The note must be given context and does not remove the employee's right to claim lawfully denied employment benefits; the admission of terminal dues confirmed employment.

p. 4
03

Fairness of termination

Holding

Termination was unfair: no written reasons, no due process, and the employer failed to bring closure after alleged abandonment

Reasoning

Absence from work without permission is gross misconduct under Section 44, requiring the employer to issue notice to the employee to respond, and to terminate with notice copied to the Labour Office under Section 18(5)(b). The appellant did neither, so employment terminated unfairly without valid reason.

p. 5
04

Limitation on continuing-injury claims

Holding

House allowance and overtime claims are continuing injuries claimable only within 12 months of cessation; the claim filed on 30 June 2021 was in time

Reasoning

Section 89 of the Employment Act limits claims to 12 months for continuing injuries. The respondent was terminated after leave in July 2020 and issued a Discharge Note on 11 February 2021; the claim filed 30 June 2021 fell within the 12-month window for the continuing-injury heads.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • It is the legal duty of the employer to issue a written contract of employment; failure to do so exposes the employer and obliges the court to rely on the employee's word
  • Continuous employment without a written agreement converts a casual employee to a permanent employee protected under Section 37 of the Employment Act
  • A mutual separation or discharge note cannot bar an employee's lawful claims arising from unfair termination
  • An employee who absconds or abandons employment does not dismiss herself; the employer must formally end the employment relationship with notice and due process
  • Claims based on continuing injuries (house allowance, overtime) must be filed within 12 months of cessation of employment under Section 89 of the Employment Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declared that the employment of the respondent by the appellant was terminated unfairly
  2. 2.Compensation Ksh.162,874.80
  3. 3.Notice pay Ksh.13,872.90
  4. 4.Overtime Ksh.121,672
  5. 5.Rest days Ksh.5,822.40
  6. 6.House allowances Ksh.24,431.22
  7. 7.Costs of the trial court as awarded
  8. 8.The appellant is to meet 25% of the costs for the respondent
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court, Mombasa (ELRC)
CM ELRC No.424 of 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal from the magistrates' court under the Employment Act and ELRC procedural framework

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.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Security Alert Services Limited v Kebuko (Appeal E114 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 333 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Mombasa ELRC Appeal (from CM ELRC No.424 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/333/eng@2025-02-06

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