Chitiavi v Musyoka & another (Appeal E180 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2154 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenyan employers cannot treat a worker as having abandoned their job without formally acting under the Employment Act; silence means the dismissal is unfair.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed or absconded duty
The finding of abscondment was untrue and the claimant's testimony that she was fired on 15th April 2021 was more probable than not; the termination was unfair and unlawful
The demand letter for termination was issued on 25th April 2021 and acknowledged on 25th May 2021, before the police OB of 9th June 2021, making it impossible for the claimant to have worked up to 9th June 2021. The respondent gave no valid reason for termination and never invoked section 44 or conducted any disciplinary process. The trial court's reliance on the later police report was erroneous.
Whether the trial court erred in determination of relief
Three months' salary compensation, notice pay and April salary awarded in addition to service pay upheld; underpayment, leave and overtime claims not interfered with
The court considered the two-year period of work, the tedious nature of in-house nanny work and the absence of special skills in awarding three months' salary as sufficient compensation. Notice pay was awarded under section 35. Service pay of Kshs. 12,000 and April salary were upheld; claims not challenged on appeal could not be raised in submissions.
Legal principles established
#- An employer cannot simply plead abandonment/desertion without taking steps under section 44 of the Employment Act to bring the contract to closure
- In a dismissal on account of absconding duties, the employer must show the steps it took to warn the employee of dismissal for unauthorized absenteeism
- The employer bears the burden under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act to prove valid reason and fair procedure for termination
Court orders
#- 1.The termination is held as unfair and unlawful
- 2.Compensation for unfair dismissal awarded for the sum equivalent of 3 months salary of Kshs. 36,000
- 3.Notice pay of Kshs. 12,000
- 4.Service pay of Kshs. 12,000
- 5.Unpaid April salary of Kshs. 4,462.54
- 6.Total sum of Kshs. 64,462.54 awarded with interest at court rate from date of judgment until payment in full
- 7.Costs of the suit
- 8.No order as to costs on appeal
- 9.Judgment and Decree of the Hon. G.A. Omodho (PM) delivered on 8th September, 2023 set aside and substituted
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (ELRC at Machakos)
- MCELRC/E1603/2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the magistrates' court (Employment and Labour Relations Court appeal from PM's judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chitiavi v Musyoka & another (Appeal E180 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2154 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). MCELRC/E1603/2021 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2154/eng@2025-07-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.