Agunja v Master Fabricators Limited (Appeal E127 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2230 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An employee who signs a mutual separation agreement must prove duress to escape it; medical evidence justifying the separation defeated this appeal.
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 termination of the Appellant's employment was mutual and fair
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the Appellant's employment on medical grounds was mutual and fair
The court held that the medical evidence justified the mutual separation and that duress was not proved, so the trial court's dismissal of the claim stands
The Appellant contended that Section 41 of the Employment Act mandated a hearing before termination for incapacity and that he signed minutes under duress. The Respondent produced minutes of a meeting of 20th April 2018 signed by the Appellant and a shop steward agreeing to retire on medical grounds. Medical testimony showed the workplace fumes were incompatible with his asthmatic condition, and prior approval had been sought for medical retirement. The court found no duress or coercion established.
Legal principles established
#- A mutual separation requires clear terms and voluntary consent
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Chief Magistrate's Court (statutory basis not expressly stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#The appeal against the dismissal of claims for unfair termination, underpayment of wages and unpaid terminal benefits
The Appellant did not establish duress or coercion in the separation agreement, and the medical evidence justified the mutual separation
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal
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.
I am therefore inclined to dismiss the appeal with orders each party bears their costs of the same.
However and overall, there is overwhelming medical testimony and evidence indicating that the appellant's medical situation was not compatible with working in an environment like the Respondent.
The Appellant has not established a case of duress or coercion in the separation agreement.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the appeal was 'inclined to be dismissed with orders each party bears their costs' but the reasoning addresses only the termination claim and does not expressly resolve the pleaded underpayment, CBA dues, notice pay and service pay issues raised in the appeal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Agunja v Master Fabricators Limited (Appeal E127 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2230 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Appeal dated 18th April 2024 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2230/eng@2025-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.