Ingati v Securkenya Group Limited (Appeal E058 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2656 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Paying an employee notice and getting a discharge voucher signed doesn't make a termination fair if there was no valid reason or hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether termination under a contractual notice clause (clause 8) with payment in lieu is procedurally fair without compliance with sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
The termination was unfair: the termination letter disclosed no reason related to misconduct, capacity or operational requirements, and there was no compliance with section 41
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Kenfreight (EA) Limited v Nguti, the court held that although an employer may terminate by notice, the employee retains the right to challenge the fairness of that termination. Once challenged, the court must determine fairness on the merits under sections 41, 43 and 45. On re-evaluation, the letter of 16th June 2021 disclosed no valid reason and no hearing was afforded, so the termination was contrary to section 45 and unfair.
Whether the discharge voucher signed on 18th June 2021 barred the claim
The discharge voucher discharged the employer of terminal dues claims but did not affect the claim on the fairness of the termination
On re-evaluation, no evidence of duress or coercion in the execution of the voucher was placed before the trial court. Following Trinity Prime Investment Limited v Lion of Kenya Insurance Company Limited, the execution of the discharge voucher constituted a complete contract, and the appellant accepted the final calculations of his dues. However, the voucher could not extinguish the claim that the termination itself was unfair.
What remedies were due for the unfair termination
Compensation equivalent to 10 months' gross salary (Kshs. 172,300/-) awarded under section 49(4)
Applying the section 49(4) factors: the appellant served approximately 5 years and 3 months; he did not contribute to the termination; there was no demonstration he could not secure comparable employment to mitigate losses; notice pay had been made; and his pension value was minimal. The last payslip showed gross pay of Kshs. 17,230/-, yielding Kshs. 172,300/- for 10 months.
Legal principles established
#- Once the fairness of a termination effected pursuant to a contractual notice clause is challenged, the court must determine the fairness on the merits under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
- While an employer may invoke a contractual notice provision, the employee retains the right to challenge the fairness of the termination
- A discharge voucher voluntarily executed and paid constitutes a complete contract discharging the employer from further terminal dues claims, but does not bar a claim on the fairness of the termination
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment and Decree of the Hon. L. Ambasi (CM) in Milimani MCELRC No. 1615 of 2021 set aside and substituted
- 2.Declaration that the termination of the appellant's employment was unfair
- 3.Compensation for unfair termination equivalent to 10 months' last gross salary, being Kshs. 172,300/-, plus costs of suit with interest at court rate from date of judgment
- 4.Appellant awarded costs of the appeal
- 5.Stay of 30 days granted
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Milimani (MCELRC No. 1615 of 2021)
- Milimani MCELRC No. 1615 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over appeals from the Magistrates' Employment and Labour Relations Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ingati v Securkenya Group Limited (Appeal E058 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2656 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Appeal from Milimani MCELRC No. 1615 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2656/eng@2025-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.