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

Angweny v Elite Power Craft Limited (Appeal E138 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 277 (KLR) (30 January 2026) (Judgment)

[2026] KEELRC 277 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
277
Citation
[2026] KEELRC 277 (KLR)
Decided
30 January 2026
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 decision of a Principal MagistrateCoramNJ ABUODHA
The court found that the trial court erred by not awarding the Appellant his reliefs sought.

Facts

The Appellant, Kevin Nyambane Angweny, was employed as a Technician by the Respondent, Elite Power Craft Limited. The Appellant alleged he was unfairly terminated on 12th October, 2023, while the Respondent claimed he absconded duties due to theft charges.

Issues

  • Whether the trial court erred by finding that the Appellant did not discharge his burden of proof that he was unfairly terminated.
  • Whether the trial court erred by not awarding the Appellant his reliefs sought.

Reasoning

The court held that the Appellant had the burden to prove unfair termination occurred before the Respondent could justify the grounds of termination. The evidence did not support the Respondent's claim of disciplinary action and theft.

Outcome

The appeal was allowed with costs, and the trial court's judgment was set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal was allowed with costs.
  • The trial court's judgment was set aside.

Remedies

  • The Appellant's reliefs were awarded.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act, 2007
  • Evidence Act
Cases cited (2)
  • Gitobu Imanyara & 2 others v Attorney General [2016] eKLR
  • Pius Machafu Isindu v Lavington Security Guards Limited [2017] 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