Mahondo v Craft Silicon Limited & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 453 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2889 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a sacked executive Kshs 1 million plus USD 750,000 for a promised 1% company share, proving secret recordings can win employment cases.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of reason and fairness of procedure for termination
Termination was unlawful and unfair; the performance review was skewed, procedurally flawed, and based on trumped-up charges with the key accuser not testifying.
The court found that adverse memos began within a month of the salary increase and 1% share award, corroborating the Claimant's account of harassment after he demanded a copy of his contract. The CEO's wife, the main protagonist, never testified at the disciplinary hearing or in court, so the employer failed to justify the termination under section 47(5). The Respondent thus violated sections 41, 43, 44 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Entitlement to 1% shareholding in the 2nd Respondent
The court found as a fact that the Claimant was awarded 1% shareholding, proved by electronic recordings and unchallenged valuation of USD 75,000,000.
RW1 was captured in secret recordings acknowledging the 1% award with a further 1% dependent on performance. RW1 evaded the issue in chief and was confronted only under cross-examination. The company valuation of USD 75,000,000 was not contested, only bare denial, so the court awarded the 1% value of USD 750,000.
Compensation for unlawful and unfair termination
Equivalent of three months' salary awarded, considering length of service (one year), loss of career growth, mistreatment, and non-employment at hearing.
Applying Mary Chemweno Kiptui v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited and Elizabeth Washeke v Airtel, the court considered the statutory factors under section 49: the Claimant served one year, held a lucrative position he helped establish, suffered mistreatment, lost career growth, and had not obtained similar employment, though he had received terminal benefits except shareholding and compensation.
Legal principles established
#- The employer bears the burden of proving valid reasons for termination and compliance with fair procedure under sections 41, 43, 44 and 45 of the Employment Act.
- Mere denial in pleadings without supporting evidence does not contradict a claimant's credible evidence.
- A person central to the alleged misconduct who does not testify leaves the employer's case unsupported; hearsay cannot displace credible direct evidence.
- Authenticated secret recordings are admissible and can prove the terms of an oral variation of an employment contract on a balance of probability.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant against the Respondent for Kshs. 1,020,000 being three months' salary in compensation for unlawful and unfair termination of employment.
- 2.USD 750,000 being 1% value of the company (1% x USD 75,000,000).
- 3.Interest on (a) and (b) from date of judgment till payment in full.
- 4.Costs of the suit to the Claimant.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment Act, 2007; Employment and Labour Relations Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mahondo v Craft Silicon Limited & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 453 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2889 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2889/eng@2025-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.