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

Magaju v Bash Hauliers Limited (Cause 920 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 3168 (KLR) (13 November 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEELRC 3168 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
3168
Citation
[2025] KEELRC 3168 (KLR)
Decided
13 November 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeUnfair TerminationPostureAppeal from an original trialCoramOCHARO
Holding

The Court found the dismissal to be unfair.

Facts

The Claimant, Patrick Mutembai Magaju, was dismissed by the Respondent, Bash Hauliers Limited, on May 20, 2016. The dismissal was for disciplinary reasons, but the Claimant disputes its fairness. The Respondent claims the dismissal was justified under Section 44(4)(c) of the Employment Act, 2007.

Issues

  1. Whether the dismissal of the Claimant from employment was fair.
  2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Reasoning

The Court noted that for a summary dismissal to be fair, it must be both procedurally and substantively fair. The employer must prove the presence of these two aspects. The Court found procedural unfairness due to the lack of a clear written job description and the failure to follow the mandatory procedure outlined in Section 41 of the Employment Act.

Outcome

The Court found the dismissal to be unfair.

Remedies

  • Payment for Unfair Termination
  • Payment of Superior and Favourable Pension Service
  • Unpaid Annual Leave
  • Payment of 12 months' notice
  • Interest on the above sums
  • Cost of this suit

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act, 2007
Cases cited (1)
  • Pius Isundu Machafu v Lavington Security Guards Ltd [2017] eKLR
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case