Musungu v Babs Security Limited (Cause 127 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 2067 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer that fails to show up in court loses an unfair termination case automatically, with the worker's evidence treated as true.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was unlawful and unfair
The termination was unlawful and unfair for breach of sections 36, 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act - no notice, no opportunity to be heard, no valid reason
The Claimant's uncontroverted evidence established that he worked from 16 April 2012 until 13 September 2013 when his employment was terminated without notice, a show-cause notice, or explanation. The Respondent filed a response but did not adduce any evidence, having been proceeded against as undefended. Relying on the two authorities cited, the court found the Respondent failed to prove a valid reason or fair procedure, rendering the termination substantively and procedurally unfair.
Entitlement to terminal benefits and compensation
Claimant awarded one month's notice pay, severance for one completed year, leave pay for one year two months, and four months' salary as compensation under section 49(1)(c) and 4 of the Employment Act
The court assessed notice pay at Kshs. 9,572.00, severance at 15 days' salary for one completed year (Kshs. 4,786.00), and leave pay of Kshs. 11,170.52. In exercising discretion under section 49, the court noted the Claimant served one year, did not contribute to the termination, received no terminal benefits, and lost his livelihood, warranting four months' salary as compensation. The overtime claim failed for want of proof.
Effect of the Respondent's failure to appear and adduce evidence
The suit proceeded as undefended; the defence was deemed closed and the Claimant's evidence stood uncontroverted
On 15/10/2024 the Respondent's then advocate had no instructions; newly instructed counsel was not yet on record and sought an adjournment. On 17/12/2024 there was no representation for the Respondent, and the court directed the matter to proceed as an undefended suit. The Claimant's evidence was therefore uncontroverted, and the Respondent bore the consequences of failing to discharge its evidentiary burden on reason and procedure.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination to pass the fairness test, there must be both substantive justification (a valid reason) and procedural fairness
- An employer bears the burden of proving a valid reason and a fair procedure for termination; uncontroverted evidence of unlawful termination entitles the employee to terminal benefits and compensation under sections 49(1)(c) and 4 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant against the Respondent for terminal benefits and compensation in the sum of Kshs. 63,816.52
- 2.Interest at court rates from date of judgment till payment in full
- 3.Costs of the suit awarded to the Claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment dispute under the Employment Act, 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Musungu v Babs Security Limited (Cause 127 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 2067 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2067/eng@2025-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.