Transport Workers Union v Greenline Company Limited (Cause E447 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 3761 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled Greenline unfairly sacked a bus driver, awarding him over Kshs. 251,000 because the company couldn't prove a valid reason or fair procedure.
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 was employed by the Respondent as alleged
- 2.Whether the employment was unfairly terminated by the Respondent
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether an employment relationship existed between the grievant and the Respondent
Yes - the grievant was employed by the Respondent as a Bus driver, proved on a balance of probability
The Claimant produced NTSA Badges and a manifest indicating the grievant as driver for the Respondent. The Respondent's witness claimed the badges could be made anywhere but admitted the defence never pleaded they were fake. On a balance of probability, the documents proved the employment relationship despite discrepancies in the NSSF statement and manifest naming other entities.
Whether the employment was unfairly terminated
Yes - the termination was unfair and unlawful because the Respondent failed to discharge the statutory burden under section 45(2) of the Employment Act
Section 45(2) requires the employer to prove both a valid and fair reason and a fair procedure. The Respondent merely denied the employment relationship and produced no evidence to rebut the grievant's evidence that he was asked to take the bus to the yard and was never recalled. Following George Musamali v G4S, the court held both valid reason and fair procedure were not proved.
Whether the termination was by way of redundancy justifying severance pay
No - the facts disclosed constructive dismissal, not redundancy, so the severance claim failed
The pleadings and evidence showed the grievant was instructed to take the bus to the yard and thereafter never assigned duties, which supports constructive dismissal rather than a declared redundancy under section 40 of the Employment Act. Severance pay was therefore unavailable.
Assessment of terminal dues including notice, October 2022 salary, leave and underpayment
Notice, unpaid October 2022 salary and underpayment assessed on the statutory minimum wage for a Heavy Commercial Vehicle driver (Kshs. 34,302.75 plus 15% house allowance); leave awarded only for 2019 to 2022
Section 35(1)(c) entitled the grievant to one month's notice. Underpayment ran only from May 2022 when the General Wage Order took effect, computed at Kshs. 39,448.15 gross minus Kshs. 20,000 paid. Leave was computed partly on Kshs. 20,000 (2019-2021, no minimum wage evidence) and partly on Kshs. 34,302.75 (2022).
Entitlement to a Certificate of Service
Granted under section 51 of the Employment Act as the grievant served over four consecutive weeks
Section 51 of the Employment Act obliges an employer to issue a certificate of service to an employee who has served for over four consecutive weeks. The grievant served from 2011 to 2022 and was therefore entitled to the certificate.
Legal principles established
#- In civil suits, the standard of proof is on a balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt
- Under section 45(2) of the Employment Act, a termination is unfair if the employer fails to prove a valid reason and a fair procedure; the burden of proof rests on the employer
- Where an employer does not plead that documents are fake, allegations impugning the authenticity of those documents carry little weight
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant against the Respondent
- 2.One month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 34,302.75 awarded
- 3.Unpaid salary for October 2022 of Kshs. 34,302.75 awarded
- 4.Leave of Kshs. 66,011.75 awarded
- 5.Salary underpayment of Kshs. 116,688.90 awarded
- 6.Total award of Kshs. 251,306.32 subject to statutory deductions
- 7.Respondent ordered to issue a Certificate of Service to the grievant
- 8.Claimant awarded costs plus interest at court rate from the date of filing the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes (Employment Act; Labour Relations Act framework), the suit following a failed conciliation before the Cabinet Secretary for Labour's conciliator
Relief refused
#Severance pay for 10 years worked at 15 days per year (Kshs. 247,717.90)
The court found the pleadings and evidence supported constructive dismissal rather than redundancy, so severance pay under section 40 of the Employment Act was not available
Leave for the full 10 years claimed (210 days, Kshs. 346,804.50)
The claim was found exaggerated and lacking material particulars; leave awarded only for 2019 to 2022
Underpayment claim for the period up to 2021
No evidence adduced to prove minimum basic salary before 2021; the applicable Wage Order took effect on 1st May 2022
Costs
The Claimant is awarded costs plus interest at court rate from the date of filing the suit.
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.
Consequently I enter judgment for the Claimant as against the Respondent as follows:
The Claimant is awarded costs plus interest at court rate from the date of filing the suit.
I take note that the standard of proof in civil suit, is on a balance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt.
Having found that the Respondent did not discharge the burden of proof of valid reason for the termination and fair procedure, I hold that the Claimant has proved unfair and unlawful termination of the grievants employment by the Respondent on 1st September 2022.
Consequently I find and hold that the Claimant has not proved a case of redundancy and therefore the claim for severance pay fails.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the date of termination: the court finds termination on 1st September 2022 while the claimant's narrative states the grievant worked until 7th September 2022
Typographical errors in dates: 'On 24th November 20232' appears to be a garbled year, and the reliefs claim 2100 leave days while the analysis refers to 210 days
Arithmetic inconsistency in the total: the individual awards (34,302.75 + 34,302.75 + 66,011.75 + 116,688.90) total Kshs. 251,306.15, but the judgment states Kshs. 251,306.32; also leave is computed as Kshs. 66,011.92 in the analysis but awarded as Kshs. 66,011.75
Inconsistency in the wage order effective date: the judgment states the 2021 Wage Order took effect on 1st May 2022
Discrepancy in the employer name: the manifest produced relates to Greenline Safaris while the suit is against Greenline Company Limited, yet the court still found employment with the Respondent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Transport Workers Union v Greenline Company Limited (Cause E447 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 3761 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3761/eng@2025-12-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.