Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMombasa CMELRC No. E749 of 2023 (appeal against that judgment)· [2025] KEELRC 2664 (KLR)

Omusundi v Kitui Flour Mills Limited (Appeal E049 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2664 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
2 October 2025
1,158 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employee who ignores an employer's notice to show cause loses all rights to claim unfair dismissal compensation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa, delivered by M. Mbarũ J on 2 October 2025, against a judgment of the magistrates' court in Mombasa CMELRC No. E749 of 2023 dated 7 March 2025. The appellant, a plant mechanic, was summarily dismissed on 30 September 2023 after being caught, according to the respondent, hiding two roller bearings in a bucket, and after being arrested and charged with stealing by a servant under sections 268 and 281 of the Penal Code. He was served with a notice to show cause dated 25 September 2023 but did not reply. Before the trial court he claimed notice pay, unpaid September salary, house allowance for 79 months, unpaid leave for 7 years and 12 months' compensation. The trial magistrate found the summary dismissal justified except that unpaid wages of KSh. 33,149 were awarded. On appeal, the court applied its own first-appellate duty to review and reassess the evidence. Relying on Ogutu, Gachuri and Kamundia, it held that a summary dismissal is justified where an employee fails to respond to a show-cause notice, defeating claims for notice pay and compensation under sections 41 and 47(5) of the Employment Act. The house allowance claim failed because payment statements already included Ksh. 4,972 as house allowance, and the leave claim failed because the discharge voucher of 12 October 2023 paid accrued leave days. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Effect of failure to respond to a notice to show cause

Holding

The summary dismissal was justified; the appellant cannot claim notice pay or compensation

Reasoning

The appellant was served with a notice to show cause dated 25 September 2023 requiring him to explain why his employment should not terminate following theft charges. He did not reply, despite his own pleadings acknowledging receipt. Relying on Ogutu and Gachuri, the court held the employer had fulfilled section 41 requirements, and the dismissal was therefore justified, defeating claims for notice pay and compensation.

p. 2
02

House allowance claim

Holding

The claim fails because payment statements already provided a house allowance

Reasoning

Although the written contract of 1 July 2019 at Ksh. 24,083 did not state a house allowance, the payment statements for June to September 2023 included a house allowance of Ksh. 4,972, which was not challenged. The claim for 79 months' house allowance therefore failed.

p. 3
03

Unpaid leave claim

Holding

The claim fails because accrued leave days were paid in the terminal dues

Reasoning

The discharge voucher dated 12 October 2023 included a payment of Ksh. 33,469 for accrued leave days. The terminal dues paid factored in accrued leave days and days worked, so the trial court's finding was upheld.

p. 3
04

Scope of first appeal

Holding

The court is entitled to review, reassess and make its own findings on the evidence

Reasoning

As a first appeal, the court reappraises the evidence and draws its own conclusions, though in this case it affirmed the trial court's findings.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee served with a notice to show cause who fails to respond cannot later claim that their employment rights were breached, and is precluded from relief under section 47(5) of the Employment Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Penal Codesections 268 and 281
  • Employment Actsection 41
  • Employment Actsection 47(5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Ogutu v Kenya Export Promotion and Branding Agency
    Cause E551 of 2024 [2025] KEELRC
  • Bernard E.N. Gachuri v Jamii Bora Bank Limited
    [2020] KEELRC 606 (KLR)
  • Kamundia v National Cement Company Limited
    Cause E070 of 2021 [2025] KEELRC
On appeal from
Magistrates' Court (ELRC), Mombasa
CMELRC No. E749 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over the subordinate court judgment (the judgment states 'This is a first appeal. The court must review, reassess, and make findings.')

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Omusundi v Kitui Flour Mills Limited (Appeal E049 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2664 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Mombasa CMELRC No. E749 of 2023 (appeal against that judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2664/eng@2025-10-02

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.