Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC Appeal No. E011 of 2025· [2026] KEELRC 2519 (KLR)

William Wanyonyi Munialo v Maliwa Security Services Ltd, Maliwa Enterprises & Vincent Masinde

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
21 September 2026
2,843 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a security guard's unfair termination appeal because he could not prove he was ever employed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant appealed to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kakamega against the dismissal by the Butali Magistrates' Court of his claim that he was employed by the Respondents as a security guard at Simba Quarry from 1st January 2021 to 15th May 2022 at Kshs5,000 per month and was unfairly terminated without notice or hearing. He sought declarations that the termination was unlawful, salary for May 2022, notice pay, compensation for unfair termination, underpayments and costs. The Respondents denied ever employing him, contending the 1st Respondent was incorporated on 5th January 2021 and commenced security operations only in 2022, and that no employment records existed because he was never engaged. The appeal was canvassed by written submissions. The Appellant argued the trial court erred on the burden of proof, relying on Sections 2, 9, 10, 20, 36-47 and 74 of the Employment Act and authorities on shifting the evidential burden. The Respondents maintained the overall burden remained on the Appellant, citing Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act and Kirugi v Kabiya. Justice David Nderitu framed two substantive issues: whether the trial magistrate erred in finding no employment relationship and hence no unlawful termination, and the orders and costs on disposal. The court held that the M-Pesa statement showed no payments from any Respondent, the attendance list bore no Respondent's name, signature, letterhead or stamp and improbably recorded work on 31st April 2021, and no co-worker was called. The burden of proving the employment relationship never shifted to the Respondents. The court upheld the trial court's finding, dismissed the appeal in its entirety, and ordered each party to meet its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Appellant proved an employment relationship with the Respondents

Holding

The Appellant failed to prove an employment relationship; the M-Pesa statement showed no payments from the Respondents and the attendance list bore no identifying marks of any Respondent

Reasoning

The court examined the documentary evidence: the M-Pesa statement for 1st January 2022 to 7th September 2023 showed no payment from any Respondent, and the pleaded first payment of Kshs4900 on 8th January 2022 was unsupported. The attendance list contained the Appellant's name but no Respondent's name, signature, letterhead or stamp, and improbably recorded work on 31st April 2021. No co-worker was called to corroborate employment.

p. 12
02

Whether the burden of proving employment terms shifts to the employer

Holding

The burden of proving the employment relationship and unfair termination remained with the Appellant throughout and never shifted to the Respondents

Reasoning

Applying Section 47(5) of the Employment Act, the court held that the employee bears the burden of proving unfair termination. Since the Appellant never established a prima facie employment relationship, the evidential burden could not shift to the employer to disprove the terms of employment or produce records.

p. 12
03

Whether this Court should interfere with the trial court's judgment

Holding

The trial court correctly found no employment relationship; there was no reason to interfere with its judgment

Reasoning

The court upheld the trial court's finding that the Appellant failed to prove an employment relationship with the Respondents or any of them, found no misapprehension of the evidence, and dismissed the appeal in its entirety with no order as to costs, each party bearing its own costs.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • The burden of proving the existence of an employment relationship and unfair termination rests on the employee and does not shift to the employer unless the employee first establishes a prima facie case
  • Section 47(5) of the Employment Act places the burden of proving unfair termination on the employee and the burden of justifying the grounds for termination on the employer

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal fails in its entirety and is hereby dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall meet own costs in this appeal
On appeal from
Butali Magistrates' Court
ELRC No. E020 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's employment claim (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; appeal from Butali Magistrates' Court ELRC No. E020 of 2023)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "William Wanyonyi Munialo v Maliwa Security Services Ltd, Maliwa Enterprises & Vincent Masinde", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Appeal No. E011 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2519/eng@2026-09-21

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