SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Donald v Tofada Security Services Limited (Appeal E129 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1346 (KLR) (9 May 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEELRC 1346 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1346
Citation
[2025] KEELRC 1346 (KLR)
Decided
9 May 2025
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeAppealPostureAppeal from a judgment of the Chief Magistrate's CourtCoramJW KELI
The court found that the termination was lawful and procedurally correct, and thus the appellant's claims for wrongful dismissal and other damages were dismissed.

Facts

The appellant, Anthony Imbati Donald, was terminated from his employment by the respondent, Tofada Security Services Limited, on account of redundancy. The termination was based on a letter dated 12th May 2021, and the Employment Act was cited as the basis for the termination.

Issues

  • Whether the appellant was wrongfully dismissed on account of redundancy
  • Whether the trial court erred in failing to award the reliefs sought in the claim
  • Whether the appellant was wrongfully dismissed on account of redundancy

Reasoning

The court held that the termination was based on a valid redundancy and that the Employment Act was correctly applied. The court also found that the trial court's decision was not clearly wrong.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act
Cases cited (2)
  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd
  • Mbogo v Shah
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case