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

Pride Kings Security Service v Odundo (Appeal E075 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 295 (KLR) (4 February 2026) (Judgment)

[2026] KEELRC 295 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
295
Citation
[2026] KEELRC 295 (KLR)
Decided
4 February 2026
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppeal from a judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations CourtCoramJK GAKERI
Holding

The court found the termination of employment unfair and awarded compensation, but overturned the trial court's judgment due to misapprehension of evidence.

Facts

The respondent claimed unfair termination of employment, alleging non-payment of salary and benefits from May 2020 to May 2023. The respondent did not provide an employment contract or other evidence of employment.

Issues

  1. Whether the termination of employment was fair
  2. Burden of proof on the claimant

Reasoning

The court held that the respondent did not provide credible evidence of employment beyond September 2020, and that the trial court erred in finding the termination fair.

Outcome

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • Declaration of unfair termination
  • Compensation awarded

Remedies

  • Compensation for underpayment and salary in lieu of notice
  • Unpaid leave days
  • House allowances
  • Service pay
  • Compensation for unfair termination

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Evidence Act
  • Employment and Labour Relations Act
Cases cited (5)
  • Gitobu Imanyara & others V Attorney General
  • C.M.C. Aviation Ltd V Cruis Air Ltd
  • Mary Wambui Kabuguo V Kenya Bus Services Ltd
  • Karugi & another V Kabiya & 3 others
  • Mbogo V Settlement Land Trustees
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