Langat v Kimathi (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E025 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2645 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan security guard won Kshs. 148,378 after unfair dismissal, but lost several claims because he offered no proof.
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 claimant was unfairly and unlawfully terminated
- 2.If (a) above is in the affirmative, whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant was unfairly and unlawfully terminated
Yes. The termination of 27th February 2025 violated section 35(1)(c) of the Employment Act, was effected without notice, hearing or valid reason, and the claim was uncontroverted after proper service.
The claimant bore the burden of proof under sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act, which he discharged through his statement and documents. He was employed from 20th December 2023 as a Security Guard and terminated on 27th February 2025 without notice, contrary to section 35(1)(c). The respondent, duly served (including via WhatsApp), filed no response, so the claim proceeded as formal proof and was uncontroverted.
Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Partially. Notice pay, leave, service pay and underpayment were granted; salary arrears, public holiday and ofi day compensation, pro-rata leave and legal fees were declined for lack of proof.
The court examined each head of claim against the evidence. Items proved or uncontroverted (notice pay, leave where the employer kept no records, service pay absent NSSF remittance records, underpayment per the wages order) were awarded; items merely claimed without evidence were declined, reflecting the claimant's continuing evidential burden even in formal proof.
Who should bear the costs of the suit
The Claimant was awarded costs, with interest at court rates from the date of judgment until full payment.
Having succeeded substantially on an uncontroverted claim, the claimant was found deserving of costs as the ordinary consequence under the general rule that costs follow the event.
Legal principles established
#- A claim of unfair termination requires proof of both substantive justification and procedural fairness under sections 43 and 41 of the Employment Act
- Even in an undefended cause, a claimant must still prove their case on a balance of probabilities
- Where an employer adduces no evidence of having granted leave, leave entitlement is allowed
- Service pay is grantable where there are no records of NSSF remittance
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant in the sum of Kshs.148,378.90
- 2.Payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice Kshs.10,500/=
- 3.Leave days allowance of Kshs.10,500/=
- 4.Service pay of Kshs.6,057/=
- 5.Underpayment as per the wages order Kshs.121,321.90
- 6.Costs of the suit awarded to the Claimant
- 7.Interest at court rates from date of judgment till full payment
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 (sections 35, 41, 43, 45 invoked); the judgment does not cite the founding constitutional provision
Relief refused
#Salary arrears for 8 months (Kshs. 88,200)
merely claimed but no evidence tendered
Compensation for public holidays (Kshs. 4,900)
not proved
Compensation for ofi days worked (Kshs. 35,700)
not proved
Pro-rata leave (Kshs. 2,120.19)
period not specified
Legal fees (Kshs. 83,789.934)
no basis to grant
Costs
Costs are awarded to the Claimant, with interest at court rates from the date of judgment till full payment
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 Court finds the Respondent having been served with the summons as per the afidavit of service on the court record he failed to participate in the proceedings and hence the claim was uncontroverted and judgment is hereby entered in favour of the Claimant.
To establish a claim of unfair termination, both substantive justification and procedural fairness must be demonstrated, in accordance with sections 43 and 41 of the Employment Act.
Nonetheless, as afirmed in Gichinga Kibutha V Caroline Nduku [2018] eKLR, a claimant must still prove their case on a balance of probabilities.
Underpayment is granted as per the wages order Kshs.121,321.90.
Costs are awarded and interest at court rates from date of judgment till full payment. Total award is Kshs.148,378.90
Issues in the judgment
#Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission is cited by the claimant in submissions and then relied on by the court without the court attributing it; treatment recorded as applied cautiously.
The judgment lacks a case number in the portion available; only the claim's filing date is given.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Langat v Kimathi (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E025 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2645 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Statement of Claim dated 24th April 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2645/eng@2025-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.