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

Kosgey v B. M Security (Cause E175 of 2023) [2026] KEELRC 302 (KLR) (5 February 2026) (Judgment)

[2026] KEELRC 302 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
302
Citation
[2026] KEELRC 302 (KLR)
Decided
5 February 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

TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from a decision of the Employment and Labour Relations CourtCoramONESMUS MAKAU
The Claimant's employment was not unfairly terminated, and she is not entitled to the reliefs sought due to the settlement agreement signed on 8th August 2022.

Facts

The Claimant, Rose Kosgey, was employed by Respondent, B. M Security, as an Assistant Zonal Manager. She was transferred to Eldoret in 2013 and later requested for early retirement in 2022. She signed a clearance certificate acknowledging the payment of her terminal dues.

Issues

  • Whether the Claimant's employment was unfairly terminated
  • Whether the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought

Reasoning

The court found that the Claimant voluntarily requested for early retirement and signed a clearance certificate waiving further claims. The court held that the execution of the clearance certificate constituted a binding contract and gave rise to an estoppel.

Outcome

The suit is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • Trinity Prime Investment Limited v. Lion of Kenya Insurance Company Limited [2015]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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case