Singh v Ambani (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E017 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2340 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court upheld an unfair termination award for a domestic worker but cut the service pay, since money already paid had to be deducted.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant's employment was unfairly terminated
Termination was unlawful; the appellant never recalled the claimant to work after his release from police custody
The claimant was arrested after a robbery incident, released without charge after three days in custody, and was never expressly asked to return to work. The appellant admitted at cross-examination that he did not expressly ask the claimant to resume duties. The certificate of final payment did not extinguish the claimant's entitlement to have the reasons for termination judicially considered.
Whether the 12 months' compensation award was justified
Yes; the award of 12 months' salary (Kshs. 168,000) was left undisturbed
Relying on Ken Freight (E.A) Limited v Benson K. Nguti, once wrongful termination is found the court applies section 49 of the Employment Act. The claimant served 16 years, was not recalled to work, and had no other benefits. The labour officer had not considered the reasons for termination, so the claimant was entitled to his day in court on that issue despite the agreement.
Entitlement to service pay
Service pay reduced: Kshs. 112,000 less Kshs. 54,810 already paid, leaving Kshs. 57,190
The claimant was not a member of NSSF or any other scheme, so section 35 of the Employment Act applied. The trial court ought to have discounted the Kshs. 54,810 already paid as service pay, and the statutory rate is 15 days for every year worked. The court interfered with the trial court's award to that extent.
Cross-appeal: underpayment, overtime, accrued leave and salary in lieu of notice
Cross-appeal dismissed; trial court's dismissal of those claims upheld
The claimant was employed as a general worker, not a cook, and did not controvert the respondent's evidence. The overtime claim was inconsistent with admitted periods of leave. Accrued leave (Kshs. 51,567) and notice pay (Kshs. 14,000) were included in the terminal dues computation and were not challenged or denied.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, while making allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
- An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by an inferior court unless the decision is clearly wrong
- Once a termination is found wrongful or unfair, the court must consider and apply the remedies under section 49 of the Employment Act
- Service pay is payable at 15 days' salary for every year served, and amounts already paid as service pay must be discounted
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is allowed on the amount of awarded service pay only
- 2.The cross-appeal is dismissed
- 3.The Judgment and Orders of the Honourable B.M. Cheloti [SRM] delivered on 17th February 2023 in MCELRC No. E1040 of 2021 are set aside and substituted
- 4.Judgment entered for the claimant against the respondent: the termination is held to have been unlawful
- 5.12 months salary for unfair termination at Kshs 168,000
- 6.Balance service pay of Kshs. 57,190/-
- 7.Total sum awarded of Kshs. 225,190 with interest at the court rate from the judgment date until payment in full
- 8.Certificate of service to issue under section 51 of the Employment Act
- 9.Costs of the suit to the claimant
- 10.Costs in the appeal are awarded to the appellant; no costs awarded with respect to the cross-appeal
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrates Court at Nairobi
- MCELRC No. E1040 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Chief Magistrates Court (Employment and Labour Relations cause); appeal decided by way of rehearing per Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Singh v Ambani (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E017 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2340 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Case Tracking System appeal filed 12th April 2025 (judgment amended following order of 19th June 2025 setting aside judgment of 23rd May 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2340/eng@2025-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.