Nuclear Investment Limited v Kinyanjui (Appeal E008 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1998 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed the employee's dismissal was unfair but cut his underpayment award to three years, because employment claims expire after three years.
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 appeal is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent's termination was substantively and procedurally fair
Termination was unlawful; the Appellant failed to give valid reasons and did not afford a hearing
The Appellant issued contradictory letters - one dated 24th May 2019 citing poor performance and closure of the Nakuru office, and a dismissal letter dated 6th June 2019 citing 'ignorance and misconduct' without details. No disciplinary hearing was held, contrary to section 41. The court found the Respondent did not decline the transfer or abscond, and that the requirements of sections 43(1), 41 and 45 were not met.
Whether the underpayment award of 96 months was time-barred
Partially - limited to 36 months under section 89 of the Employment Act
Relying on Mary Kitsao Ngoma & 36 Others v Krystalline Limited, the court held that underpayment claims are limited to the 3-year period under section 89, and are not a continuous injury once employment ends. The magistrate's award for 96 months was therefore reduced to 36 months at Kshs.2,477.75 per month, totalling Kshs.85,572.
Whether the leave pay and compensation awards were warranted
Yes - leave pay and 12 months' compensation upheld given the length of service
The court found the leave pay was warranted despite the Appellant's reliance on section 28(4) of the Employment Act, and that 12 months' compensation was deserved considering the period the Claimant had worked for the Appellant. The remaining reliefs were therefore upheld alongside the reduced underpayment figure.
Legal principles established
#- An employee bears the initial burden under section 47(5) of proving unfair termination; once established, the employer must justify valid reasons and fair procedure under sections 43 and 41
- Termination must satisfy both substantive justification and procedural fairness
- Employment claims are subject to the 3-year limitation period under section 89 of the Employment Act, which is not a continuous injury after employment ends
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal against the finding of unfair termination dismissed
- 2.Award of Kshs.543,462/= for underpayment replaced with Kshs.85,572/= (36 months @ Kshs.2,477.75)
- 3.Other reliefs (leave pay, 12 months' compensation, notice pay) upheld
- 4.Interest at 14% per annum from date of judgment till full payment
- 5.Respondent awarded costs of both the lower court and this appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court
- not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over appeal from the Magistrate's Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act); appeal against judgment delivered on 13th April 2023
Relief refused
#Appeal against finding of unfair termination and against leave pay and compensation awards
Respondent failed to comply with sections 43(1), 41 and 45 of the Employment Act; leave pay and 12 months' compensation warranted
Costs
Respondent is awarded costs of both cases of the lower court and of this appeal.
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 court agrees with the trial court that the Respondent was unlawfully terminated. The court therefore holds that the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
The award of Kshs.543,462/= for under payment is replaced with Kshs.85,572 but other reliefs are upheld.
The interest will accrue at 14% per annum from date of Judgment till full payment.
Respondent is awarded costs of both cases of the lower court and of this appeal.
For termination to pass the fairness test it ought to be shown that there was not only substantive justification for termination but also procedural fairness.
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical errors rendering 'fi' as 'fi'/'i' (e.g. 'afiirmed', 'fiawed', 'ofiice') throughout the text
Typographical errors in party references - 'The Appellant was not given an opportunity to defend himself' in a passage that appears to refer to the Claimant/Respondent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nuclear Investment Limited v Kinyanjui (Appeal E008 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1998 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Appeal dated 27th April 2023 (Nakuru ELRC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1998/eng@2025-07-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.