Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC Appeal No. E007 of 2026· string

Kimanzi Kilonzi v SAAB Enterprises Limited

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Machakos
18 September 2026
JKJemimah Keli
4,586 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that finding a dismissal unfair does not automatically entitle a worker to 12 months' compensation; courts can award only notice pay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Machakos by Kimanzi Kilonzi, one of 36 claimants, against the consolidated judgment and decree of Hon. M.K. Mwangi (CM) delivered on 16th December 2025 in Mwingi MCELRC E001-E036 of 2022. The trial court had found the claimants' terminations procedurally unfair under section 41 of the Employment Act but awarded only one month's salary in lieu of notice to each claimant, plus costs and interest, declining compensation under section 49. The appellant's two grounds were that the magistrate erred in failing to award compensation for unfair termination despite finding the termination unfair, and in failing to give reasons for that failure. The court discerned a single issue: whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to award compensation. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Kenfreight (EA) Limited v Nguti, the court held that the award under section 49(1) is an exercise of judicial discretion; the word 'or' preceding section 49(1)(c) means it is not mandatory to grant both notice pay and compensation. The trial court's discretion was informed by its finding that the grounds for termination were lawful (business closure in 2021) and evidence of attempts to sell the premises. Applying Mbogo v Shah, the court found no basis to disturb the trial court's discretion. The second ground on failure to give reasons was not expressly determined. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the file marked as closed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to award compensation for unfair termination despite finding the termination unfair

Holding

No error - the award under section 49(1) is discretionary and the trial court's choice of notice pay alone, informed by lawful grounds and business closure, was not capricious

Reasoning

The court re-examined the trial judgment and found the discretion was exercised on the basis that the grounds for termination were lawful (business closure) and there was evidence of attempts to sell the premises. Following Kenfreight, section 49 allows any or all remedies if discretion is exercised judiciously; the 'or' in section 49(1)(c) means compensation need not accompany notice pay.

p. 17

Legal principles established

#
  • On finding unfair termination, a court must exercise judicial discretion under section 49 of the Employment Act, and the word 'or' before section 49(1)(c) means it is not mandatory to grant both notice pay and compensation
  • An appellate court will not interfere with a lower court's exercise of discretion unless the decision is clearly wrong, based on misdirection or wrong conclusions

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs
  3. 3.File marked as closed
On appeal from
Mwingi Magistrates' Court (ELRC)
MCELRC E001-E036 of 2022 (Consolidated)
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal from the consolidated judgment and decree of Hon. M.K. Mwangi (CM) in Mwingi MCELRC E001-E036 of 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kimanzi Kilonzi v SAAB Enterprises Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Appeal No. E007 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2467/eng@2026-09-18

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.