Wanjiru v Neuce Kenya Paint Industry Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 584 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that firing an employee with a letter giving no reason — even if he later signed a 'mutual' separation agreement — was unfair, awarding him two months' salary plus interest and costs.
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 Respondent declared the Claimant redundant or he was terminated normally
- 2.Whether the mutual agreement is binding
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was declared redundant or terminated normally
The termination letter did not cite redundancy or any reason; it effected termination under section 35(1)(c). The defence case of misconduct was not communicated and no disciplinary hearing was held, so the termination was unfair and unprocedural
The notice of termination dated 8th November 2023 gave no reasons and did not mention redundancy, contrary to the requirements of section 40(1) of the Employment Act. Although the Respondent pleaded misconduct (irresponsibility, negligence, insubordination, absenteeism), those grounds were not stated in the termination letter and no hearing under section 41 was conducted. Under sections 45(1) and 47(5), the employer must both justify the reason and prove fair procedure; neither was met.
Whether the mutual agreement is binding
Not binding; the agreements dated 14th and 24th November 2023 were executed after the Claimant had already been terminated, so they cannot amount to mutual consent
The court held that even if the Claimant signed the mutual separation agreements, they were executed after the service of the termination notice. Payment of terminal dues was pegged to execution, and the agreements therefore post-dated and could not cure the termination. Sequencing undermined any suggestion of genuine mutual agreement to end the employment.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought
Only partially; the court awarded 2 months' compensation of Kshs.200,000 with interest and costs, holding the Claimant was already paid notice pay, leave, severance and commission
Judgment was entered for the Claimant on unfair termination. However, the court declined the full 12 months' compensation, awarding only 2 months' salary given the short duration of employment. It noted the Claimant had been paid salary in lieu of notice, pending leave days, severance pay and commission, effectively rejecting the additional heads of claim.
Legal principles established
#- A mutual separation agreement executed after the employee has already been served with a termination notice cannot be regarded as mutual consent
- For termination to pass the fairness test there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness
- A termination letter that gives no reason for termination, and a defence based on conduct not communicated or subjected to a disciplinary hearing, render the termination unfair and unprocedural under sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Compensation equivalent to 2 months' salary of Kshs.200,000/=
- 2.Interest at 14% per annum at court rates from date of judgment till full payment
- 3.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 41(1)(2)(a) of the Constitution 2010 and sections 35, 40, 41, 45, 47(5) and 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act; employment and labour relations dispute
Relief refused
#12 months' compensation under section 49(1)(c) (Kshs.1,869,900) and the other claimed dues
The court awarded only 2 months' compensation, noting the claimant worked for a short time and was already paid salary in lieu of notice, pending leave days, severance pay and commission
Refund of Kshs.93,880/= deducted from terminal dues
Not separately granted in the final orders; the court found the claimant was paid salary in lieu of notice, pending leave days, severance pay and commission
Declaration of violation of Article 41(1)(2)(a) and general, exemplary and aggravated damages under Article 23(3)
Not addressed in the analysis or granted in the final orders
Certificate of service
Not granted in the final orders
Costs
He is awarded costs of 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.
The two agreements were issued after claimant had already been terminated and so they cannot be regarded mutual consent.
For termination to pass the fairness test, it ought to be shown that there was not only substantive justification of the termination but also procedural fairness.
The respondent terminated the claimant both unfairly and unprocedurally.
He is awarded costs of the suit.
Total awarded is Kshs.200,000/= plus interest at 14% per annum at court rates from date of judgment till full payment.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment gives conflicting dates for the termination - the termination letter is dated 8th November 2023 while the claim pleads termination by letter dated 8th December 2023
The judgment does not name the respondent party or the case number of the suit
The court awards interest 'at 14% per annum at court rates' which conflates a specific rate with court rates
The relief list in paragraph 64 is followed by an incomplete closing line, 'Such evidence is lacking in this case.', which appears misplaced from the quoted passage in the Walter Ogal Onuro case
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wanjiru v Neuce Kenya Paint Industry Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 584 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/584/eng@2025-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.