Singh v Ambani (Appeal E017 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1592 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld an unfair termination award but reduced service pay, confirming employers must actually recall cleared employees back to work.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was unfair
The trial court's finding of unfair termination was upheld; the appellant never expressly recalled the claimant to work after his release from police custody.
The claimant was arrested after a robbery incident, cleared by police without charge, and upon release was not recalled to work. The appellant admitted in cross-examination that he did not expressly ask the claimant to return to work. The appellate court found no basis to disturb the trial magistrate's factual finding of unfair termination, applying the Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co principles for reappraisal of evidence.
Whether the reliefs granted were excessive
The 12 months' salary award of Kshs. 168,000 was upheld, but the service pay award was reduced to Kshs. 57,190 after discounting the Kshs. 54,810 already paid and applying the 15-days-per-year rule.
Relying on Ken Freight (E.A) Limited v Benson K. Nguti, the court confirmed section 49 Employment Act governs remedies for unfair termination and declined to interfere with the 12-month award given 16 years of service. On service pay, section 35 provides 15 days' pay per year worked; the amount of Kshs. 54,810 already paid under the undisputed tabulation had to be discounted from the recomputed award of Kshs. 112,000.
Whether the certificate of final payment barred the claim
The claimant remained entitled to a day in court on the reasons for termination notwithstanding the certificate; the agreement did not bar the unfair termination finding.
The claimant alleged the certificate of final payment was signed under coercion before the labour officer. The court held the reasons for termination were not considered by the labour officer and the claimant was entitled to have that issue determined in court despite the settlement agreement.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.
- An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by an inferior court unless satisfied the decision is clearly wrong or based on error.
- Parties are bound by pleadings; a cross-appeal cannot be raised through submissions alone.
- Once a court finds termination wrongful or unfair, remedies are governed by section 49 of the Employment Act.
- Service pay is payable at 15 days' salary for every year worked and must be discounted by amounts already paid as service pay.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment and orders of the Honourable B.M. Cheloti (SRM) delivered on 17 February 2023 set aside and substituted with judgment for the claimant against the respondent
- 2.A holding that the termination was unlawful
- 3.12 months' salary for unfair termination of Kshs. 168,000
- 4.Balance of service pay of Kshs. 57,190
- 5.Total award of Kshs. 225,190 with interest at court rate from judgment date until payment in full
- 6.Certificate of service
- 7.Costs of the suit
- 8.Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant
- 9.Stay of 30 days granted
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrates Court (Nairobi, ELRC)
- MCELRC No. E1040 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court (employment appeal); Employment Act cited as governing law
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Singh v Ambani (Appeal E017 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1592 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (appeal from MCELRC No. E1040 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1592/eng@2025-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.