Ng’asura & 28 others v Karrymart Limited (Cause 903 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 2600 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that firing workers who attended a labour office meeting, after months of unpaid wages, was illegal and awarded them over Kshs 5 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was for a valid reason and followed fair procedure
The summary dismissal was unlawful and unfair; the Claimants had a right to attend the lawfully convened labour office meeting and the Respondent breached sections 36, 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
The Respondent had not paid salaries for four months, itself a fundamental breach entitling the Claimants to repudiate. The arbitrary salary reduction aggravated the situation. The Claimants were summoned to the labour office by the labour officer and were within their rights to attend. Dismissing them there by letter addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner violated the procedural and substantive fairness requirements of the Employment Act.
What remedies are available over and above the judgment on admission
Notice pay of Kshs. 667,000.00 and compensation of three months' salary (Kshs. 2,013,000.00) awarded under section 49(1)(c) and 4 of the Employment Act, plus interest, costs and certificates of service.
The court considered the Claimants' about 3 years of service, the four months without salary, their lack of contribution to the dismissal, and the non-payment of dues even after the judgment on admission. Compensation of three months' salary was deemed appropriate under section 49 of the Employment Act.
Whether the Respondent could call a defence witness without filing a statement of defence or witness statement
The court refused the application to file a defence and call Dr. Kariithi after the Claimants closed their case and over seven years after the suit was filed.
The suit was undefended; the Respondent had filed no statement of response or witness statements. Permitting a defence witness from the bar after the Claimants' case was closed and after seven years of delay would be unconscionable and prejudicial to the Claimants.
Legal principles established
#- Failure to pay salaries for four months amounts to fundamental breach of the employment contract entitling the employee to repudiate and claim damages and terminal dues
- Dismissing employees summarily for attending a lawfully convened conciliation meeting at the labour office is unprocedural and violates sections 36, 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
- An employer facing financial difficulties should follow the redundancy procedure under section 40 of the Employment Act rather than arbitrarily reducing salaries and summarily dismissing employees
Court orders
#- 1.Part of the judgment on admission ordered by the court on 24/11/2017 from which the parties reached a consent of Kshs. 2,553,141.00 which has not been paid to date
- 2.One month salary in lieu of notice for all the Claimants as particularized in column 7 of Annexe '1' in the sum of Kshs. 667,000.00
- 3.Compensation equivalent to three months salary in respect of each Claimant for a total sum of Kshs. 2,013,000.00
- 4.Interest at court rates from date of judgment till payment in full
- 5.Costs of the suit to the Claimants
- 6.Certificate of service to each Claimant within 30 days of the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes; Articles 41 and 27 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 invoked; Employment Act 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ng’asura & 28 others v Karrymart Limited (Cause 903 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 2600 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Statement of Claim dated 9th May 2017 (amended 21st January 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2600/eng@2025-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.