Charo v Shreeji Enterprises Limited (Appeal E254 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2684 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Unfair termination
Termination was not unfair; the appellant absconded and failed to produce the required medical certificate
The appellant was involved in a road accident, treated at Makindu Hospital, and given leave to seek treatment in Mombasa. He remained absent for four months, was directed to produce original treatment records, failed to do so, and filed suit instead. Sections 30 and 34 of the Employment Act give employees the right to seek medical care but impose a duty to prove illness. Absence without permission or proof is gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal, so no notice pay or compensation arises.
Burden of proof on termination claims
The appellant failed to discharge the burden under section 47(5) of the Act
The respondent argued, and the court accepted, that the appellant produced no termination letter and no treatment records verifying absence due to illness. On a first appeal the court reassesses the evidence but must respect the trial court's advantage of hearing witnesses. The learned magistrate's findings on unfair termination were found to be accurate.
Leave, overtime, public holidays and rest days claims
All rejected for want of proof and particulars
Leave accrues only over the last 18 months under section 28(4); without a medical certificate the leave claim amounts to unjust enrichment. Public holidays must be individually specified. Rest days and overtime claims lacked particulars of working hours, and were held to be exaggerated, citing authority that such exaggeration casts doubt on the veracity of the entire claim.
Legal principles established
#- An employee absent from work due to illness must prove the reason for absence with a medical certificate from a recognised health facility; failure constitutes gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal
- Gratuity is not a statutory entitlement and must be grounded in the contract or a collective agreement
- Exaggerated claims lacking particulars and supporting evidence should be rejected
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (CMELRC), Mombasa
- CMELRC No. E473 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court from the lower court (no constitutional/statutory provision expressly cited)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charo v Shreeji Enterprises Limited (Appeal E254 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2684 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Mombasa ELRC Appeal arising from Mombasa CMELRC No. E473 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2684/eng@2025-10-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.