Magiri v Red Pulse Limited (Cause 1390 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 1142 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that an employer who gives no reasons and no hearing unfairly fires an employee, but employees must still prove discrimination claims with evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural and substantive fairness of termination
The termination was unfair as the Respondent adduced no evidence of compliance with section 41 or of valid and fair reasons under sections 43 and 45para 2
Section 41 requires the employer to inform the employee of the reasons for termination and accord them an opportunity to make representations, accompanied by a fellow employee or union representative, before a final decision. The Respondent filed a defence but called no witness. The Claimant's uncontroverted evidence that no reasons were given and no hearing was held therefore stood, and the statutory burdens under sections 43 and 45para 2 were not discharged.
Discrimination on account of pregnancy
The claim failed because the Claimant did not prove she was pregnant at the material time, though pregnancy-based termination would automatically be unfair under section 46
Under section 46 of the Employment Act, termination on account of pregnancy is on prohibited grounds and automatically unfair. However, the employee must prove the factual predicate: that she was pregnant at the material time and that the termination was attracted by that fact. Mere assertion is insufficient, and the Claimant led no such proof, so no discrimination damages were available.
Entitlement to notice pay
Absent proof of a probationary period, the Claimant was entitled to one month's salary in lieu of the twenty-eight days' notice required under sections 35 and 36
The Respondent produced no material demonstrating that the Claimant was to serve a probationary period before confirmation. Her employment was therefore terminable by twenty-eight days' notice under section 35. Her uncontroverted evidence that no such notice was issued entitled her to payment in lieu of notice under section 36 of the Act.
Quantum of compensatory relief under section 49[1][c]
Two months' gross salary (KShs. 140,000) awarded as compensation, considering the one-month duration of employment and the employer's failure to comply with statutory dictates
The compensatory power under section 49para 1[c] is discretionary. The court considered that the Claimant did not contribute to her termination, the Respondent's non-compliance with procedural and substantive fairness requirements, and the short duration of the employment (one month), concluding that the equivalent of two months' gross salary was appropriate compensation.
Legal principles established
#- A statement of defence not supported by evidence at the hearing has no evidential value, but the claimant must still discharge any legal burden resting on them
- An employer bears legal burdens of proving reasons for termination, their validity and fairness, and procedural fairness; failure discharges render the termination unfair
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment was unfair
- 2.Compensation pursuant to section 49[1][c] of the Employment Act of KShs. 140,000
- 3.One month's salary in lieu of notice of KShs. 70,000
- 4.Interest on the awarded sums at court rates from the date of judgment till full payment
- 5.Costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (unfair termination claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Magiri v Red Pulse Limited (Cause 1390 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 1142 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No 1390 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1142/eng@2025-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.