Kandiyal v Sameer Agricultural & Livestock (Kenya) (Cause 14 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2625 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that paying salary in lieu of notice does not replace a fair disciplinary hearing, but a signed full-and-final settlement agreement still blocks most claims.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Was there an unfair termination?
- 2.Did the claimant prove the hostile work environment or overwork?
- 3.Was the waiver/release agreement binding?
- 4.Are the reliefs merited?
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was procedurally fair
Termination was procedurally unfair as the claimant was not subjected to a disciplinary hearing
The court found no disciplinary hearing was conducted and no performance appraisal records justified the dismissal. Reliance on payment in lieu of notice under Section 36 did not exempt the employer from Section 41 fair-procedure requirements. The respondent's witness admitted no hearing or notices preceded the termination.
Whether the claimant proved a hostile work environment or forced overtime
Not proved; claims dismissed
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the claimant produced no independent evidence, witness, email, complaint or report. The court also reasoned that an employee who re-joined the employer after his initial contract could not have done so if the employer was hostile.
Whether the waiver/release agreement was binding
Yes, binding
The claimant signed a full and final settlement agreement, received USD 7,470.24, and did not plead coercion in his pleadings or raise it at the time. Duress or fraud was not proved, so the agreement stands and bars further claims.
What relief is merited
Two months' salary as compensation plus a certificate of service
Given the procedural unfairness but the subsisting separation agreement, the court assessed compensation at two months' salary (USD 5,500, being 2,750 x 2), reflecting that the claimant had worked 18 months of a two-year contract. A certificate of service was ordered if not already issued.
Legal principles established
#- Payment in lieu of notice does not exempt an employer from complying with fair procedure under Section 41 of the Employment Act
- Full and final settlement agreements are binding unless duress or fraud is proved
Court orders
#- 1.Award of two months' salary as compensation for unfair termination, USD 5,500 (2750 x 2)
- 2.The respondent shall provide the claimant with a certificate of service if not already provided
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007
Relief refused
#Damages equivalent to twelve months' gross salary (43,800 USD) for unfair and constructive dismissal
Claimant had worked 18 months of a two-year contract; two months' salary awarded instead; other claims unproved
Claims of hostile work environment, unfair labour practices and forced overtime
No independent evidence or witness; no email, complaints or reports filed
Taxes deducted and not remitted (9,000 USD), unpaid leave, notice pay and other dues
Claimant signed a full and final settlement agreement and received USD 7,470.24; no duress or fraud proved
Costs
Not expressly stated in the judgment as provided; no costs order recorded
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.
The employer simply relied on Section 36 (termination with pay in lieu of notice), but this did not exempt them from complying with fair procedure under Section 41 of the Employment Act.
Courts have upheld as binding, such agreements unless duress or fraud is proved, which was not done in the present case.
The respondent shall further provide the claimant with a certificate of service if not already provided.
In this regard an award of two months’ salary as compensation for unfair termination would be adequate in the circumstances. That is to say USD 5,500/- (2750 x 2).
Issues in the judgment
#Gender inconsistency in pleadings - the claimant is described as both female and male
Salary figure inconsistency - claimant testified to USD 3,750 while RW1 stated USD 2,750, and the court awarded based on 2,750
Case number and costs disposition not stated in the judgment; signature block describes the judge as 'Presiding Judge-Appeals Division' although this is a first-instance claim
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kandiyal v Sameer Agricultural & Livestock (Kenya) (Cause 14 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2625 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2625/eng@2025-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.