Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 2127 (KLR)

Levati v Dodla Dairy Kenya Limited & another (Cause E021 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2127 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 July 2025
4,146 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled an expatriate employee resigned voluntarily, awarding only admitted dues and rejecting overtime, service pay, and unfair termination claims.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, an Indian expatriate, sued the 1st and 2nd Respondents (sister companies under one parent) alleging he served as Finance Manager for over six years without a written contract, without off days or leave, without compensation for public holidays and overtime, and that he was constructively dismissed through an arbitrary transfer to Nyahururu, demotion, reduction of allowances and a toxic work environment that pressured him into resigning. He sought overtime, public holiday pay, leave, off-duty compensation, service pay, a return ticket to India, a certificate of service, a declaration of unfair termination and compensation of up to twelve months' wages. The Respondents maintained the Claimant signed (or at least was engaged under) a valid 2018 contract, was granted leave, resigned voluntarily, and admitted owing only one month's leave pay (USD 1,600), March 2024 salary, a return ticket and a certificate of service. The court framed three issues: whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed; entitlement to reliefs; and costs. Applying Coca-Cola v Ligaga and the Court of Appeal's dictum that a resignation is a unilateral act, the court found the resignation voluntary: no grievances were raised during the year in Nyahururu, no proof of demotion or reduced allowances, salary unchanged, and the resignation email raised no complaints. The forgery allegation failed for want of expert evidence. Overtime, public holiday, leave and off-duty claims failed on proof and were partly time-barred under section 89 of the Employment Act. The judgment is dated 18th July 2025, delivered virtually at Nakuru by Anna Ngibuini Mwaure, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed

Holding

Constructive dismissal not proved; the resignation was voluntary.

Reasoning

The court applied the principles in Coca-Cola East & Central Africa Ltd v Maria Kagai Ligaga, that constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach by the employer creating a hostile environment. The Claimant gave no proof of grievance during his one year at Nyahururu, no proof of reduced allowances or demotion, salary remained unchanged, and his resignation email of 16th February 2024 raised no complaint against the Respondents. His work permit was cancelled only after resignation, showing he still had a permit when he resigned.

p. 8
02

Whether the Claimant proved the prayer items for overtime, public holidays, leave days and off duties

Holding

These prayers were not proved and were disallowed; some were also time-barred under section 89 of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

Relying on Rogoli Ole Manadieigi v General Cargo Services Ltd, the court held that an employee must specifically demonstrate the excess hours worked rather than rely on the employer's absence of records. The security register only recorded entry and exit, no documentation of overtime existed, and the claims over six years of employment were locked out by the limitation provision in section 89 of the Employment Act.

03

Whether the Claimant proved forgery of the employment contract dated 24th January 2018

Holding

The denial of signature was unsubstantiated; fraud requires strict and credible evidence, typically expert testimony, which the Claimant lacked.

Reasoning

The Respondents invoked sections 107(1), 109 and 112 of the Evidence Act, placing the burden of proving fraud on the Claimant. In cross-examination the Claimant admitted he had no expert report supporting his claim that the signature was not his. The court also found it doubtful that an expatriate would have obtained a work permit without an executed contract.

p. 7
04

Entitlement to the admitted dues

Holding

The Respondents admitted owing one month's annual leave (USD 1,600), March 2024 salary, a return ticket to India and a certificate of service; the court ordered payment accordingly.

Reasoning

The Respondents agreed to settle these dues in their amended reply. The court adopted the admissions and ordered payment of the leave amount, the March 2024 salary as worked out by the Respondent, the return ticket or cash in lieu, and issuance of the certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act within 30 days.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • A notice of resignation is a unilateral act of the employee and amounts to a notice of termination of employment by the employee.
  • Constructive dismissal must arise from a fundamental breach by the employer, such that the employee has no option but to resign.
  • The employee bears the burden of specifically proving overtime hours worked; allegations of fraud (such as forgery of a contract) require strict proof and expert evidence.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Payment equivalent to one month annual leave being US $ 1600
  2. 2.Payment of March 2024 salary as would be worked out by the Respondent
  3. 3.The Respondent will pay for Return ticket to India or cash in lieu thereof
  4. 4.The certificate of service to be availed to the Claimant in accordance with Section 51 of the Employment Act 30 days from date of the judgment
  5. 5.Each party to meet their own costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (claim for unfair termination and statutory breaches)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Levati v Dodla Dairy Kenya Limited & another (Cause E021 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2127 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2127/eng@2025-07-18

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.