Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri ELRC

Bundu Cafe VS Simon Juma Muriithi

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

Christopher Mwangi Ndiritu VS Silver Brook Hotel Ltd

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

Kenya Union Of Clinical Officers VS Chief Officer Health Services County Government Of Marsabit AND Marsabit County Public Service Board AND 1 Others

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Judicial Review

State Law Office VS Joseph Mwangi Kihara

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

Joel Maika Mikunyua VS Kenya Horticultural Exporters Ltd

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Petitions

John Muthui Gachago VS John Kabiru Mwaniki

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

Kiama Farmers Cooperative Society VS Jane Murugi Mahinda AND Co-operative Bank Of Kenya Limited

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

Anglican Church Of Kenya Diocese Of Embu VS Rev. Elijah Gichangi Wanja

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

County Government Of Kirinyaga AND Kirinyaga County Secretary VS Hon.peter Ndambiri Njagi

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

The court reviewed an appeal against a trial court's award of Kshs.5,700,000 housing allowance to a Deputy Governor who claimed entitlement under SRC circulars. The Appellant argued the Respondent's salary (Kshs.621,250) included housing allowance per Gazette Notice 6518, but the court held SRC circulars on housing benefits were legally binding, requiring the Appellant to provide housing or rent payment. The court found the Appellant failed to provide housing, so the Respondent was entitled to Kshs.90,000 monthly rent for 60 months, totaling Kshs.5,700,000.

County Assembly of Embu VS The Salaries and Remuneration Commission

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Petitions

The petitioner, a County Assembly established under Article 176 and 177 of the Constitution, challenged the respondent (Independent Constitutional Commission)’s circulars that demoted County Assembly members from job grade D5 to D4 and reduced their benefits. The court found the petition meets the competence threshold under the reasonable precision test. The court declared the circulars unconstitutional as they violated Articles 10, 27(1)(2)(3)(4), and 47 of the Constitution by unilaterally demoting members without due process and reducing benefits, and quashed the circulars. The court also held the respondent did not fail to approve Non-practicing Allowance as it followed constitutional principles and existing regulations.

Joyce Wanjiru Baru VS Justus Kiara

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

The court set aside the trial court's finding that the respondent was unfairly terminated, ruling that the respondent failed to prove he was dismissed by the appellant via phone call on 28th August 2023. The court found that the respondent did not discharge the burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act to demonstrate termination by the appellant, and instead, he stopped attending work without prior notice. The court substituted the finding that the respondent voluntarily left his job, thereby setting aside the awards of 12 months' salary compensation and one month's salary in lieu of notice.

Mundia Mundia Njeru Geteria VS Embu County Government AND Governor Embu County Hon. Cecily Mutitu Mbarire AND 2 Others

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Judicial Review

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for mandamus to compel payment from Embu County Government and its officials, as the applicant failed to obtain the required certificate of order under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, which mandates that 21 days after judgment or taxation of costs, a certificate must be issued before enforcement. The court found the applicant only provided a judgment and consent agreement but not the necessary certificates, making the application premature and without costs.

Aegis Construction Limited VS Richard Maina Kihenja

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

The appellant appealed against the lower court's decision regarding the unlawful termination of the respondent's employment. The appellant challenged the trial court's findings on multiple grounds, including the misdirection on the claimant's termination, the failure to apply Section 30 of the Employment Act, 2007, and the erroneous conclusion that the respondent was not required to present a certificate of incapacity. The court found that the respondent's employment was terminated by the appellant without proper procedure, as the appellant did not serve a show cause notice or conduct a disciplinary hearing, and the respondent was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. The court upheld the trial court's decision that the termination was unfair and unlawful, emphasizing the need for fair procedures under the Employment Act.

CPL ALEX MURIITHI NKANDA VS THE NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE AND 1 Others

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Petitions

The court considered a motion filed by a petitioner seeking urgent certification, suspension of deployment from Mai Mahiu Traffic Sub-Base to Maganda Police Station, prohibition on interference with duties, contempt penalties for the Deputy Inspector General, and costs. The motion arose from the petitioner's claim that repeated deployments post-2021 court order breached constitutional rights and regulations. The court noted the 2021 judgment quashed a specific transfer but did not grant immunity from future deployments, and the petitioner's selective enforcement of the order after the judgment was criticized. The court found the motion should be allowed as the petitioner's recent deployments constituted contempt of the 2021 decree, but the case was later marked as fully settled after a settlement agreement was reached.

Riva Petroleum Dealers Limted VS Anthony Wanjohi Ndumia

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

The court quashed the lower court's ruling on the appeal, finding that the appellant erred by failing to properly challenge the leave to file suit out of time under section 90 of the Employment Act. The trial court incorrectly held that it could not sit on appeal over a fellow magistrate's leave order, but the court determined that the appellant could raise a preliminary objection to the time-barred suit during trial proceedings, as leave to file suit out of time is not a final order and can be challenged during the trial. The court ruled that the trial court erred in allowing the suit to proceed without addressing the time-barred issue during trial, and the appeal was allowed with the statement of claim struck out.

Stanley Njenga Mbugua VS Stepma Enterprises Limited

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Petitions

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for urgent orders, including setting aside ex-parte orders and granting leave to respond, as the applicant was duly served with the Notice of Motion on 23rd January 2025 via email and phone number, and the orders were not made without opportunity to be heard. The court found the applicant's claims of constitutional breach and privacy violation unfounded, as the service methods were valid under Rule 28(1) of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2024, and the applicant failed to attend court despite being served.

Amos Mwangi Njoroge VS China Far East Construction Company Limited

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

The court dismissed the appellants' appeals against the trial court's finding that they failed to prove an employment relationship with the respondent. The appellants alleged unlawful termination of employment by the respondent between July 2018 and 2020, but they did not produce written contracts or witnesses to support their claims. The trial court found that the appellants did not prove their employment relationship under section 107 of the Evidence Act, as they only submitted demand letters and no evidence of salary payments. The court upheld the dismissal with costs, noting the appellants failed to meet the burden of proof for employment and termination claims.

Leonard Magira Muchiri VS China Far East Construction Company Limited

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

The court dismissed the appellants' appeals, finding that they failed to prove an employment relationship with the respondent as alleged. The appellants did not provide sufficient evidence, such as written contracts or bank statements, to demonstrate they were employed by the respondent. The trial court concluded that the appellants did not meet the burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act, and the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Moses Murithi Ndaguri VS China Far East Construction Company Limited

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

The court dismissed the appellants' appeals, finding that they failed to prove they were employed by the respondent as alleged. The appellants did not provide sufficient evidence, such as written contracts or bank statements, to establish the employment relationship despite alleging oral contracts and payment of salaries. The respondent's witness denied the employment relationship and admitted that the appellants were casual employees not employed for more than three months. The court held that the appellants did not meet the burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act, which requires proving facts on a balance of probabilities.

Stephen Kiogora Guantai VS China Far East Construction Company Limited

Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations Court·Appeals

The court dismissed the appellants' appeals, finding that they failed to prove an employment relationship with the respondent as alleged. The appellants did not produce sufficient evidence, such as written contracts or bank statements, to establish that they were employed by the respondent. The trial court concluded that the appellants did not meet the burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act, which requires proving facts on a balance of probabilities. The court emphasized that the appellants only produced demand letters and no other documentary evidence, and their witnesses did not corroborate the employment relationship.