Joy Kwamboka v Benjamin Nzei T/A Nzei & Company Advocates
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded an advocate Kshs. 630,000 after her employer fired her by text message without following 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 claimant's salary at termination was Kshs. 90,000 or a consolidated Kshs. 55,000
- 2.Whether the claimant was terminated on 16th January 2024 or absconded duty
- 3.Whether the termination was procedurally fair and substantively justified
- 4.Whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies sought (notice pay, compensation, severance, leave, service pay)
- 5.Whether the respondent's counterclaim is established
Key legal issues
#Salary at termination
The court found the claimant's salary at termination was Kshs. 90,000, relying on her bank statement showing progressive increments and the respondent's failure to produce a written contract
The bank statement showed payments progressing from Kshs. 55,300 to 90,000 with consistency. The respondent failed to produce the employment contract, triggering section 10(7) of the Employment Act which places the burden of proving or disproving alleged terms of employment on the employer.
Whether termination occurred
The text message of 16th January 2024 evidenced an intention to terminate, accepted by the claimant, amounting to a complete severing of services
The respondent admitted sending the text informing the claimant she should concentrate on her own ventures, thanking her for service and promising salary in lieu of notice. The court read this as an intention to terminate, to which the claimant assented, completing the separation.
Procedural fairness
The termination was unfair because no notice to show cause was given before the decision to terminate
The respondent admitted no notice to show cause preceded the termination message. Section 41 requires an employer to explain the reasons for contemplated termination on grounds of misconduct before terminating. The subsequent attempt to investigate after the demand letter and suit were filed could not cure the illegality.
Counterclaim
The counterclaim failed and was dismissed because the allegations were not established with evidence
The issues of client diversion ought to have been established before termination. Patrick Mulei, the alleged client, was never called to testify; the investigation report was not submitted; the alleged bullying was not evidenced by any document. The extent of the counterclaim and what the respondent seeks was therefore not established.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employer fails to produce a written contract, the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of employment falls on the employer under section 10(7) of the Employment Act
- Termination without prior notice to show cause or explanation violates section 41 of the Employment Act and is unfair under section 45(2)
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the claimant: 1 month salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 90,000
- 2.Compensation for unfair termination of 6 months' salary at Kshs. 540,000 (total Kshs. 630,000 less statutory deductions)
- 3.Respondents to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of judgment
- 4.Counterclaim dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (Employment Act claims)
Relief refused
#Severance pay of Kshs. 60,000
Not awarded in the final orders; severance is confined to redundancy under section 40 of the Employment Act as the respondent argued
Accrued leave days of Kshs. 63,000
Not awarded in the final orders despite the claimant's submissions on section 28 of the Employment Act
Damages of 12 months' gross salary (Kshs. 1,080,000)
Court awarded only 6 months' salary as compensation, finding that extent adequate
Costs
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this 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 will decide this contention in favour of the claimant by finding that her due salary at termination was kshs 90,000/-.
My reading of the text shows an intention to terminate the claimant’s services and to which the claimant indicated it is fine showing a complete severing of the claimant’s services.
Given the lack of procedural propriety, I find the termination unfair and unjustified and I declare this as the position.
The extent of the counter claim and what the respondent seeks from the claimant is therefore not established. The counter claim must therefore fail and is dismissed accordingly.
(1) 1 month salary in lieu of notice = kshs 90,000/-.
Given the extent of the unfairness which rendered the claimant abruptly unemployed, I find 6 month’s salary as compensation for the unfair termination adequate which I render at kshs 90,000x6= kshs 540,000/-.
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#Response to Claim dated 20th May 2024 predates the Statement of Claim dated 6th June 2024
RW1 cross-examination dates the termination text to 16/1/2023, conflicting with the pleaded 16th January 2024
Cited authority Muregi v Highridge Secondary School carries a 2026 citation, later than the events
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joy Kwamboka v Benjamin Nzei T/A Nzei & Company Advocates", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Cause No. E002 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2607/eng@2026-09-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.