Eafula v Menengai Oil Refineries Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E233 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 38 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a security guard's termination unfair, awarding him over KShs 1.4 million mainly because his employer withheld attendance records.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was unfairly terminated
Yes - the termination was premature, unprocedural and unlawful as it breached Clause 7 of the contract requiring one month's notice or payment in lieu, was notified only 11 days prior, and gave no reason or reference to contract expiry.
The court found no contract was produced proving expiry on 31/05/2024, and deemed the Claimant to have been on a renewable fixed term contract. The termination letter dated 20/05/2024 gave no reason and did not refer to expiry of a contract. Clause 7 required one month's notice or payment in lieu, which was not given, rendering the termination premature and unprocedural.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to compensation and notice pay
One month's pay as compensation (Kshs. 23,230/-) and one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 20,200/-) awarded under Section 49 and Clause 7 of the contract.
The court reasoned that the contract was bound to expire one month later, so one month's compensation was appropriate. As the Claimant was on a renewable fixed term contract, non-renewal required notice, which was not given, entitling him to one month's pay in lieu under Clause 7.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to overtime and public holiday pay
Yes - awarded as computed in the pleadings and submissions because the employer failed to produce the attendance records it admitted keeping.
RW1 admitted the Respondent kept a Muster Roll and Biometric Clock in and out Register but did not produce them in court. Relying on Paul Wafula v Century Feeds Ltd and the evidential presumption, the court deemed the withheld records adverse to the Respondent and accepted the Claimant's overtime and public holiday claims as pleaded.
Whether the claims for overtime and public holiday pay were statute time barred
No - they are continuing claims filed within 12 months of cessation of employment.
The Respondent argued the claims were time barred and lacked specificity. The court held that overtime and public holiday claims are continuing claims and, having been filed within 12 months of the termination on 01/06/2024, were not statute barred.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to severance pay
No - severance pay under Section 40 applies only to redundancy, which was not the case here.
The court accepted the Respondent's submission that severance pay is mandatory compensation for termination on account of redundancy. Having found the termination arose from the end of a fixed term contract rather than redundancy, the claim failed. The court further noted an NSSF member would not be entitled to service pay in any event.
Legal principles established
#- Fairness of termination is assessed on both the procedure adopted and the substantive justification for the termination
- Where an employer admits keeping employment records but fails to produce them in court, the records are presumed to be adverse to the employer's case
- An employee who is an NSSF member, as evidenced by payslips, is not entitled to service pay
- Overtime and public holiday pay claims are continuing claims, not statute-barred if filed within 12 months of cessation of employment
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment on 01/06/2024 vide the Contract Termination Letter dated 20/05/2024 was unfair and unlawful
- 2.Compensation for unfair and unlawful termination under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act, 2007 of Kshs. 23,230/-
- 3.1 month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 20,200/-
- 4.Normal overtime of Kshs. 1,213,507.69
- 5.Public Holidays pay of Kshs. 185,840/-
- 6.Costs and interest of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court original jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Eafula v Menengai Oil Refineries Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E233 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 38 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Memorandum of Claim dated 02nd August, 2024 (Nakuru). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/38/eng@2026-02-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.