Sana Industries Limited v Odera & 2 others (Appeal E245 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2638 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld unfair termination awards against an employer for poor record-keeping but struck out severance pay because redundancy was never proven.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondents were casual or regular employees
The trial court's finding that they were regular employees was sound and well reasoned and was not disturbed
The trial court had considered the statutory definition of a casual employee and found the appellant led no evidence that the respondents were casuals rather than regulars. The appellate court, exercising retrial jurisdiction, declined to substitute its own view and upheld the finding, noting sections 10 and 74 imposed record-keeping obligations the appellant ignored.
Whether the respondents were unfairly terminated
The finding of unfair termination was upheld; the alleged show-cause letters were not proved to have been received
The appellant's own witness was not aware if the respondents received the show-cause letters; the letters bore no respondents' signatures or Labour Officer stamp. The respondents' account that they were told to go home owing to workforce reduction stood unrebutted, and sections 41 and 43 requirements were not met.
Whether severance pay on account of redundancy was payable
The award of severance pay was set aside as unsubstantiated
No evidence showed organizational changes rendering the positions superfluous; the appellant in fact alleged the respondents absconded duty. Redundancy under section 40 was not demonstrated, so the severance award could not stand and was set aside.
Quantum - monthly salary basis and unpaid leave
The trial court's awards on these heads were upheld
The appellant failed to produce employment records to displace the salary basis used or to counter the leave claim; section 10(6) placed the burden on the employer. The appellate court found the trial court's treatment of these heads justified and declined to interfere.
Legal principles established
#- An employer who fails to keep and produce employment records and written particulars bears the burden of proving or disproving the alleged terms of employment (section 10(6) and section 74, Employment Act)
- Severance pay is payable only where an employee is declared redundant under section 40 of the Employment Act; an unsubstantiated redundancy award will be set aside
- An appellate court from a trial by the magistrate's court acts by way of retrial but will not interfere with a finding that is in line with the operative law and a reasonable deduction of the evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The award of severance pay on account of redundancy is set aside
- 2.All other findings of the trial court are upheld
- 3.Each party shall bear their own costs
- 4.It is so ordered (judgment dated at Nairobi and delivered virtually on 26th September, 2025)
- On appeal from
- Ruiru Law Courts (Magistrates' Court)
- MELRC NO. 012, 13 and 17 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over appeals from the magistrate's court (appeal disposed of by way of retrial)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sana Industries Limited v Odera & 2 others (Appeal E245 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2638 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated on the face of the judgment (consolidated with Appeal Nos. 246 and 247). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2638/eng@2025-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.