Mbuvi v Jays Pyrotechnics Limited (Cause 254 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 2026 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled the dismissal procedurally unfair but awarded the employee only unpaid salary because he walked away from the restructuring.
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 parties were in a contract of employment
- 2.Whether the respondent terminated the contract of employment
- 3.Whether the dismissal was unfair
- 4.What remedies are due to the claimant
Key legal issues
#Existence of a contract of employment
The respondent admitted employing the claimant on 12.11.2018; the parties were in a contract of employment
The respondent admitted it employed the claimant in its Creative Development Department on 12.11.2018 at a monthly pay of Kshs 250,000/-. The Court therefore found as a fact that the relationship was one of employment notwithstanding the respondent's later attempt to treat the claimant as a contractor.
Whether the respondent terminated the employment
The claimant's un-rebutted testimony that he was dismissed was accepted; the respondent called no witness
The claimant testified by adopting his witness statement describing the dismissal and the unilateral change of terms and workplace. The respondent did not call any witness to rebut that testimony, so the Court accepted the claimant's account that he was dismissed.
Fairness of the dismissal
The dismissal was procedurally unfair; the respondent should have followed section 40 (redundancy) or section 41 (notice and hearing) of the Employment Act
Even if the claimant had resisted the restructuring of the enterprise, the respondent ought to have invoked due procedure, either redundancy under section 40 or notice and hearing for alleged absenteeism under section 41. No fair procedure was adopted, rendering the dismissal unfair.
Remedies
January 2019 salary balance of Kshs 190,000 awarded; notice pay and compensation refused for the claimant's contributory conduct; leave pay refused for want of particularisation
The respondent did not prove the January 2019 salary was fully paid, leaving Kshs 190,000. Leave pay failed as unparticularised and unearned. Despite the procedural unfairness, the claimant's walking away, warning letter and abandoning negotiations amounted to full contribution to the separation, denying him notice pay and compensation.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must invoke due procedure such as redundancy under section 40 or notice and hearing under section 41 of the Employment Act before effecting a separation, even where the employee resists restructuring
- Unparticularised liquidated claims fail for want of particularisation and strict proof
- An employee who fully contributes to his separation may be denied compensation for unfair termination and pay in lieu of notice
Court orders
#- 1.The respondent to pay the claimant Kshs. 190,000.00 by 01.09.2025 failing interest to run thereon at court rates from the date of filing the suit till the date of full payment
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations dispute under Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and the Employment Act, 2007
Relief refused
#Compensation for unlawful termination and one month pay in lieu of notice
The claimant fully contributed to his separation by walking away amid restructuring and had a warning letter on record
Pay in lieu of annual leave
Not particularly pleaded as a liquidated claim and the claimant had not served 12 months to earn leave under section 28 of the Employment Act
Costs
Each party to bear own 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.
It cannot be said that the respondent adopted a fair procedure to dismiss the claimant such as on account of redundancy in section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007 or a notice and hearing in view of the alleged absenteeism per section 41 of the Act
Being a liquidated claim, the same will fail for want of particularised pleading and strict proof
the Court finds that the claimant full contributed to the separation and is undeserving of the one-month payment in lieu of notice or compensation for unfair termination
The respondent to pay the claimant Kshs. 190,000.00 by 01.09.2025 failing interest to run thereon at court rates from the date of filing the suit till the date of full payment
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment lists four issues for determination but the text only expressly identifies issues 1 to 4 in fragmented form and does not restate the full list of issues as framed
Case number is not stated anywhere in the judgment text supplied
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbuvi v Jays Pyrotechnics Limited (Cause 254 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 2026 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2026/eng@2025-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.