Imram v Eedi Kenya Limited (Cause E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2796 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 employed by the Respondent and if so when
- 2.Whether the Respondent wrongfully and illegally terminated the Claimant from employment
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs outlined in the claim
- 4.Who bears the costs of the claim
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant resigned or was terminated
The Court rejected the Respondent's assertion of resignation; the letter by the Claimant's advocate could not amount to resignation, and the termination letter of 8th April 2023 was the operative document
The letter by the Respondent to the Labour Officer and the termination letter showed the employment ended circa 5th April 2023 at the employer's instance. The advocate's demand letter referring to resignation was not a resignation by the employee herself. The Court therefore relied on the termination letter as the basis for its findings.
Whether the termination was procedurally fair
The termination was unfair because the Claimant was neither heard nor given an explanation prior to termination as required by section 41 of the Employment Act
Section 41 requires an employer to explain the reasons for termination to the employee and hear representations before dismissal. No show cause letter was issued and no hearing was conducted. The employer simply wrote a termination letter for collection at the Labour Office, denying the Claimant the statutory safeguards.
What compensation is payable for the unfair termination
Only nominal compensation of 2 months' salary (Kshs. 180,000/-) was awarded given the Claimant's absence of evidence of attendance after 5th April 2023
Although the termination lacked procedural fairness, the Respondent asserted the Claimant absconded and the Claimant gave no evidence she attended work on the days after 5th April 2023. This tempered the exercise of discretion under section 49 of the Employment Act towards a nominal award.
Whether leave, notice, gratuity and overtime were payable
These claims failed, being subject to the 3-year limit on terminal claims and unsupported by evidence (especially overtime)
Overtime was a continuing wrong attracting a one-year limitation, no records of days or hours worked were produced, and the demand letter contained no overtime claim. The remaining dues were capped by the 3-year outer limit from termination, and the other claims were held to have failed.
Legal principles established
#- An employee cannot resign through a demand letter written on her behalf by an advocate; resignation is a unilateral act under the hand of the employee
- Termination without a hearing and without prior explanation breaches section 41 of the Employment Act and is unfair
- Terminal benefit claims lie only within 3 years from the date of termination of the employment contract
Court orders
#- 1.Award of Kshs. 180,000/- being 2 months' salary as compensation for the unlawful termination of employment
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
- 3.Orders accordingly (all other claims dismissed)
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution and the Employment Act (claim for unfair termination)
Relief refused
#12 months' compensation for unfair termination (Kshs. 1,080,000/-)
Given the Respondent asserted the Claimant absconded work and there was no evidence she attended work after 5th April 2023, only nominal compensation of 2 months' salary was awarded
Payment in lieu of leave (Kshs. 270,000/-)
Claims could only lie to a maximum of 3 years back from termination; the other claims failed
Payment in lieu of notice (Kshs. 270,000/-)
Fell outside the 3-year recoverable limit; all other claims failed
Gratuity at 30 days per year worked (Kshs. 1,260,000/-)
Not payable within the 3-year limitation on terminal claims
Overtime worked but not paid (Kshs. 5,476,884/-)
No evidence of overtime; it was a continuing wrong to be sought within a year; no claim in the demand letter
Costs of the suit
Each party ordered to bear their own costs
Costs
Each party is ordered to bear their own costs
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.
Can an employee resign through a demand letter written on her behalf by an advocate? I think not.
It is clear there was no hearing prior to termination and there was no explanation offered prior to the termination as required under section 41 of the Employment Act.
Given the Respondent asserts the Claimant absconded work and there was no evidence by the Claimant she attended work on the days subsequent to 5th April 2023, the Claimant is only entitled to a nominal relief of 2 month's salary as compensation which is Kshs. 180,000/-.
As all the other claims fail each party is ordered to bear their own costs.
The Court thus only awards her Kshs. 180,000/- for the unlawful termination of employment.
Issues in the judgment
#The disposition awards compensation for 'unlawful termination' but the judgment does not expressly state whether the declaration of wrongful/unfair/unlawful termination sought was granted, nor is a certificate of service mentioned in the final orders
Judgment references the Respondent's claim that the Claimant's advocates' letter of 8th February 2024 stated she 'resigned', while the Claimant's case is of termination; the Court resolves this but the case number of the suit is not printed on the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Imram v Eedi Kenya Limited (Cause E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2796 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated on face of judgment (filed 19th September 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2796/eng@2025-10-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.