Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedStatement of Claim dated 27th July 2023 (number not stated in judgment)

Mutisya v Shona Epz Limited (Cause E594 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2176 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 July 2025
LNLINNET NDOLO
2,077 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that firing an employee without stating a reason or giving a hearing is unfair, awarding her over Kshs. 1.8 million.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent on 1st February 2018 as Factory Manager on a monthly salary that rose to Kshs. 205,432. By a letter dated 2nd May 2023 signed by Director Isaac Maluki, the Respondent terminated her employment on 30 days' notice, stating only that it was 'unable to continue engaging' her, and tabulating dues of Kshs. 2,437,938 comprising 8 months' pending salary, workers advances refund, severance pay and leave pay. The dues were not paid. The Claimant sued for a declaration of wrongful and unfair dismissal, the tabulated dues, and 12 months' salary in compensation. The Respondent admitted the employment but alleged misconduct, poor performance, absenteeism, financial mismanagement and operational reasons of declining revenue, and alternatively asserted a mutual separation agreement. The Respondent's counsel ceased acting; the matter proceeded without its appearance and judgment was based on the pleadings, the Claimant's testimony and her submissions. The court framed two issues: the lawfulness and fairness of the termination, and entitlement to remedies. Relying on Sections 43, 45 and 41 of the Employment Act and the Anuro decision, the court held the termination substantively and procedurally unfair: the letter communicated no valid reason and no disciplinary process or hearing preceded it. Five months' salary in compensation was awarded, plus severance pay, leave pay and workers advances refund, with interest at court rates from judgment and costs to the Claimant. Notably, the 8 months' pending salary of Kshs. 1,643,456, though described as admitted and payable, does not appear in the final decree - an apparent internal inconsistency.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was lawful and fair
  2. 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was lawful and fair

Holding

Termination was substantively and procedurally unfair because the termination letter did not communicate any valid reason and no disciplinary process was followed

Reasoning

The Respondent pleaded misconduct, poor performance and operational reasons in its Response, but the termination letter of 2nd May 2023 mentioned none of these allegations, merely stating an inability to continue engaging the Claimant. Under Sections 43, 45 and 41 of the Employment Act the employer must prove a valid reason and follow fair procedure including a hearing. No reason was communicated and no hearing was afforded, so both substantive and procedural fairness failed.

p. 5
02

Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought

Holding

Partially - 5 months' salary compensation plus admitted dues of severance pay, leave pay and workers advances refund awarded

Reasoning

Compensation of five months' salary was awarded having regard to the Claimant's length of service, her non-contribution to the termination, and the Respondent's conduct in failing to give her a hearing and withholding terminal dues. The claims for 8 months' unpaid dues, severance pay, leave pay and workers advances refund were admitted and payable, though the final decree itemised severance, leave pay and workers advances refund only.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Every termination of employment must be supported by a valid reason, which the employer must prove, failing which the termination is unfair
  • For a termination to pass the fairness test, both substantive and procedural fairness must be established

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment for the Claimant of Kshs. 1,027,160 being 5 months' salary in compensation
  2. 2.Kshs. 512,500 severance pay for 5 years
  3. 3.Kshs. 205,432 leave pay
  4. 4.Kshs. 76,550 workers advances refund (total Kshs. 1,821,642)
  5. 5.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
  6. 6.Costs of the case to the Claimant

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

LN
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment relationship evidenced by employment contract dated 1st February 2018 (statutory provision not expressly cited)

Relief refused

#

Claim for unpaid dues for 8 months (Kshs. 1,643,456) as tabulated by the Claimant

Not included in the final judgment figure awarded; only compensation, severance pay, leave pay and workers advances refund were decreed

p. 5

12 months' salary in compensation (Kshs. 2,465,184)

Court awarded five months' salary instead, considering length of service and non-contribution to termination

p. 5

Costs

The Claimant will have the costs of the case.

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.

In the present case, the termination letter did not communicate any valid reason for termination as required by law nor was the Claimant subjected to any disciplinary process. The termination was therefore substantively and procedurally unfair and the Claimant is entitled to compensation.
p. 5unfair termination - substantive and procedural fairness
In any claim arising out of termination of a contract, the employer shall be required to prove the reason or reasons for the termination, and where the employer fails to do so, the termination shall be deemed to have been unfair with the meaning of section 45.
p. 4employer's burden of proof under Section 43
Under section 45(2) of the Employment Act, termination of an employee’s contract is unfair if the employer fails to prove that it was grounded on a valid and fair reason(s) and that it was done after following a fair procedure.
p. 5test for unfair termination (as cited from Duncan Mbathi Mulevi)
I have further taken into account the Respondent’s conduct in the termination transaction; particularly, the failure to avail the Claimant an opportunity to be heard and unjustifiable withholding of her terminal dues.
p. 5factors in assessing compensation
This amount will attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full.
p. 6interest on award
The Claimant will have the costs of the case.
p. 6costs - final orders

Issues in the judgment

#
material

Internal inconsistency: paragraph 38 states the claim for unpaid dues for 8 months is admitted and payable, but the final judgment in paragraph 39 does not include the Kshs. 1,643,456 for 8 months' pending dues among the items decreed

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mutisya v Shona Epz Limited (Cause E594 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2176 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Statement of Claim dated 27th July 2023 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2176/eng@2025-07-24

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