Public Transport Operators Union v North East Coaches Travellers Sacco (Cause E498 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2976 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court awarded a bus driver Kshs. 534,000 after his employer failed to prove his firing was fair or that he was ever heard.
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 grievant's employment was unfairly/unlawfully terminated by the Respondent
- 2.Whether the reliefs sought are merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the grievant's termination was unfair and unlawful
Termination was unfair - no valid reason and no compliance with section 41 procedure; the uncontroverted evidence of the Claimant stood proved.
The Respondent did not enter appearance or controvert the Claimant's pleadings and evidence. The court found the grievant was employed and terminated without valid reason and without the notification and hearing mandated by section 41. It applied the Court of Appeal's holding in Pius Machafu Isindu that employers bear heavy statutory obligations to prove reasons and follow the mandatory hearing process before termination.
Compensation for unfair termination
Awarded 10 months' gross salary (Kshs. 200,000) under sections 49 and 50 of the Employment Act, given 13 years of service and no contributory misconduct.
Having found unfair termination, the court exercised its discretion under sections 49 and 50. It considered the grievant's 13 years of service and that he never contributed to the termination through misconduct, fixing compensation at 10 months of the Kshs. 20,000 gross salary, plus one month's salary in lieu of notice under section 35(1)(c).
Leave, unpaid salary and service pay
Leave awarded at Kshs. 154,000 computed across both salary levels; unpaid salary for October and November 2021 awarded at Kshs. 40,000; service pay of Kshs. 120,000 awarded for 12 years.
The leave claim was scaled down because the salary varied over the years. The unpaid salary claim was unrebutted. Service pay was granted because there was evidence that no NSSF contributions were made, engaging section 35(6), computed at 15 days' salary per year of service over 12 years.
Claim for underpayment
Dismissed for want of proof.
Although pleaded that the grievant was underpaid relative to the classification of a 51-seater bus as a Heavy Commercial Vehicle under the General Wages Order, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the differential; the claim therefore failed.
Legal principles established
#- An employer bears the burden of proving that the reason for termination is valid and fair and that a fair procedure under section 41 of the Employment Act was followed; failure to do so renders the termination unfair.
- An employee is entitled to service pay under section 35(6) of the Employment Act unless the employer proves the employee was a beneficiary of an NSSF pension or gratuity scheme.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant against the Respondent for Kshs. 534,000 comprising: compensation Kshs. 200,000; notice Kshs. 20,000; leave Kshs. 154,000; unpaid salary Kshs. 40,000; service pay Kshs. 120,000
- 2.The award is subject to statutory deductions
- 3.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
- 4.Interest at court rates from the date of the judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment and labour relations dispute under the Employment Act, 2007 (court's jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act not expressly cited)
Relief refused
#Claim for salary underpayment (for driving a 51-seater bus classified as a Heavy Commercial Vehicle under the General Wages Order)
Not proved by evidence
Portion of the leave claim as pleaded (which was exaggerated by basing it on the last salary throughout)
Leave computed at the two differing salary levels rather than the final salary
Issuance of the Certificate of Service under section 51 of the Employment Act
Not addressed in the court's analysis or final orders
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the Claimant, plus interest at court rates from the date of the judgment
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.
The court finds that the Respondent unfairly terminated the grievant's employment without any valid reason and without following the mandatory procedure set out under section 41 of the Employment Act.
A mandatory and elaborate process is then set up under Section 41 requiring notification and hearing before termination.
Consequently I enter judgment for the Claimant as against the Respondent for payment of the following
The above award is subject to statutory deductions but in addition to costs and interest at court rates from the date of the judgment.
Section 35(6) of the Employment entitles an employee to service pay unless there is proof that he/she was a beneficiary of National Social Security Fund pension or gratuity scheme.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal chronological inconsistency: the grievant is said to have resumed work in January 2023 yet the termination is pleaded as December 2022, and paragraph 5 states he worked until June 2021 when shot while in Mandera despite the claim in paragraph 1 that termination occurred in December 2022.
Date inconsistency in the record: submissions are stated to have been filed on 7th October 2025 upon instruction on 14th October 2025, an impossible sequence.
Service pay computed over 12 years although compensation was based on 13 years of service; also relief (a) refers to 'Kshs. 2,971,663.00' as claimed but judgment awards Kshs. 534,000 total, with no reasoning reconciling the figures.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Public Transport Operators Union v North East Coaches Travellers Sacco (Cause E498 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2976 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2976/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.