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

Nzwili v Zheng Hong Limited (Appeal E105 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2451 (KLR) (17 September 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEELRC 2451 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
2451
Citation
[2025] KEELRC 2451 (KLR)
Decided
17 September 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 Hon. Becky Cheloti Mulema, MilimaniCoramNJ ABUODHA
The termination was unfair and the court awards the appellant one month's notice in lieu of pay, 15 days' salary for each year of service, 4 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination, and costs of the appeal.

Facts

The respondent terminated the appellant's employment on the grounds that KRA had shut down the respondent's operations, but no reasons for the shutdown were provided. The appellant claimed unfair termination and sought compensation.

Issues

  • Whether the trial court erred in finding that the respondent had valid reasons for terminating the appellant's employment.
  • Whether the termination was fair under section 45 of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

The court found that the termination was a redundancy and that the respondent did not follow the procedure required by section 40 of the Act. The court also rejected the appellant's claims for public holidays pay and leave days.

Outcome

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • One month's notice in lieu of pay
  • 15 days' salary for each year of service
  • 4 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination
  • Costs of the appeal

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Employment Act, 2007
  • Section 40 of the Employment Act
  • Section 45 of the Employment Act
Cases cited (1)
  • Kenya Airways Ltd vs. Muriithi [2010] eKLR
⚠ 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