Crown Bus Services Limited v Sheban Manyasa Obwonya
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cut a bus company's redundancy payout from Kshs339,914 to Kshs32,191 because the employee filed his claim too late.
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 termination of the Respondent was unlawful?
- 2.Whether the lower trial court arrived at the correct decision in regard to (a) above and the reliefs awarded?
- 3.What are the appropriate orders for this court to make in regard to the above issues and on costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether the redundancy terminating the Respondent was lawful
The redundancy was substantively justified (Covid-19 financial disruption) but procedurally flawed for failure to notify the labour office and pay severance, rendering it unlawful.
The trial court found the redundancy notice dated 1st October 2021 was never served on the area Labour Office as required by Section 40(1)(b), and severance was never paid, as DW1 conceded. Non-compliance with these mandatory provisions rendered the entire redundancy process flawed and unlawful, and the appellate court saw no reason to disturb that finding.
Whether the claim for unpaid salaries and leave was statute-barred
Yes - the awards for unpaid salary and unpaid leave were set aside as the claim was filed outside the 12-month limit for continuing injuries under Section 89.
The court held that unpaid salary and leave are continuing injuries whose limitation period runs twelve months from cessation. Termination took effect on 1st November 2021 but the cause was filed on 14th February 2023, 15 months and 13 days later. The trial magistrate had failed to address the limitation issue raised in submissions, arriving at a wrong finding on a jurisdictional point.
Whether the severance award was correctly computed
No - severance was reduced to 15 days' pay for one completed year on basic pay of Kshs20,000, computed at Kshs11,538.46.
Section 40(1)(g) pegs severance at not less than fifteen days' pay for each completed year of service. The Respondent served from 12th February 2020 to 1st November 2021, completing only one full year. The trial court's award of one month's net salary was wrong; the correct computation on basic pay yields Kshs11,538.46.
Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to determine the Appellant's submitted issues
Yes - failure to address the jurisdictional issue of limitation in the judgment was an error of law warranting appellate intervention.
The Appellant had submitted on limitation at pages 110-114 of the record, but the trial magistrate's judgment did not address it. Because limitation goes to jurisdiction and may be raised at any stage, the omission produced a wrong finding and justified setting aside the affected awards.
Legal principles established
#- A jurisdictional issue such as limitation may be raised at any stage of proceedings, including on appeal.
- Non-payment of salary or leave constitutes a continuing injury under Section 89 of the Employment Act, with limitation running twelve months from cessation of the injury.
- Severance pay on redundancy is computed at 15 days' pay for each completed year of service on basic pay.
- A first appellate court must evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions while bearing in mind it did not hear the witnesses.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal succeeds to the extent that the award of Kshs264,187/= as unpaid salary and unpaid leave is set aside
- 2.The severance pay of Kshs20,652.90 is substituted with the sum of Kshs11,500/=
- 3.Judgment entered in favour of the Respondent in the sum of Kshs32,191.36 plus interest from 21st November 2025 till payment in full, in substitution of the judgment for Kshs339,914.30
- 4.A fresh decree shall issue accordingly
- 5.Costs of the trial in the lower court to the Respondent as ordered
- 6.Each party shall meet own costs for this appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court at Kakamega (CMELRC)
- Kakamega CMELRC No. E003 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (appeal from CMELRC No. E003 of 2023)
Relief refused
#Damages for breach of contract of employment (prayer c)
In redundancy the employee is entitled to severance pay rather than compensation
Unpaid salaries (Kshs264,187) and unpaid leave (Kshs34,421.50)
Claims were continuing injuries statute-barred under Section 89 of the Employment Act, filed 15 months and 13 days after termination
Unpaid house allowance and unpaid overtime
Not awarded by the trial court and in any event statute-barred as continuing injuries
Unremitted NHIF and NSSF deductions
There is a statutory enforcement mechanism for non-remittance, so the sums cannot be awarded in the suit
Costs
Costs of the trial in the lower court to the Respondent as ordered; each party shall meet own costs for this appeal.
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 appeal shall succeed to the extent that the award of Kshs264,187/= as unpaid salary and unpaid leave shall be and are hereby set aside.
In substitution of the judgment for Kshs339,914.30, a judgment shall be and is hereby entered in favour of the Respondent in the sum of Kshs32,191.36 plus interest from the date of judgment of the lower court, 21st November 2025, till payment in full.
Each party shall meet own costs for this appeal.
What makes a wrong, a wrong of a continuing nature is the breach of a duty which has not ceased but which continues to subsist.
The failure by the appellant to pay the salary on time, or leave, constituted continuing injuries pursuant to Section 89 of the Employment Act
A jurisdictional issue may be raised at any stage of proceedings as it goes to the core of court proceedings.
Issues in the judgment
#Order (b) substitutes severance of Kshs11,500 but order (c)(ii) awards Kshs11,538.46.
Delivery date contains a typographical error.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Crown Bus Services Limited v Sheban Manyasa Obwonya", Case Analysis (2026). Appeal No. E032 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2553/eng@2026-09-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.