Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Midal Group [K] Limited (Cause E060 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1583 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan security guard who was orally fired without a hearing won Kshs. 185,931 for unfair termination and years of underpayment — his employer's 'he consented' defence failed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether termination occurred and was fair
The Respondent orally terminated the Grievant's employment without valid reasons or procedural fairness; termination was unfair
The Respondent's account (absconding, vanishing) was unsatisfactory: no record of invitation to a hearing, no charges, no termination letter, and no effort to charge or reinstate the Grievant when he resurfaced on 22nd December 2022. The Grievant's account of oral dismissal on 2nd September 2022, surrender of tools of trade and uniform, was more persuasive. Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act were not satisfied.
Underpayment of salary
The Legal Notice minimum wage applied; the Grievant was entitled to Kshs. 19,502 consolidated monthly salary and was underpaid by Kshs. 146,927
Section 48(1)(a) of the Labour Institutions Act makes wages-order minimums non-derogable terms of employment, and s.48(2) criminalises non-payment of statutory minimum remuneration. Consent and non-complaint are no defence. Legal Notice No. 125 of 2022 set the applicable rate for a security guard.
Compensation and notice
One month's salary as notice and one month's salary as compensation for unfair termination awarded
The Grievant worked slightly over one year, did not contribute to the termination, disclosed no alternative employment, and was paid nothing on termination; a one-month award was proportionate.
Claims for leave, rest days, overtime and public holidays
Declined for lack of evidence
The Grievant's own evidence and witness statement said nothing about these heads; only the union pleaded figures. Bare pleadings cannot sustain a monetary claim.
Legal principles established
#- Consent by an employee cannot vary statutory minimum wages set in a wages order; payment below the minimum is an offence regardless of agreement
- Employers cannot rely on employee consent to justify underpayment below statutory minimums
- Oral termination without valid reasons and without a hearing violates Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that termination was instigated by the Respondent and was unfair and unlawful
- 2.Respondent to pay the Grievant through the Claimant underpayment of salary at Kshs. 146,927, notice at Kshs. 19,502 and compensation for unfair termination at Kshs. 19,502, total Kshs. 185,931
- 3.Costs to the Claimant
- 4.Interest at court rate from the date of Judgment till payment in full
- 5.Certificate of Service to issue
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over trade disputes under the Labour Relations Act and Employment Act (inferred; not expressly quoted)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Midal Group [K] Limited (Cause E060 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1583 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Statement of Claim dated 1st December 2023, amended 5th May 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1583/eng@2025-05-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.