A labour court overturned an unfair dismissal finding against Dr Yajnik Bimal, ruling that a former cleaner failed to prove dismissal after maternity leave.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court has slashed a KSh1.4 million employment award against Nairobi dentist Dr Yajnik Bimal and his associates.
The court found that Joan Nasimiyu Sakasa failed to prove that her employers at a Nairobi dental clinic dismissed her.
Justice David Njagi Marete ruled on October 13, 2026, overturning the central finding of a lower court.
He concluded that documentary evidence supported the employers’ account that Sakasa voluntarily ceased working in July 2021.
The judgement cancelled compensation for unfair termination, notice pay, overtime, public holidays and unpaid maternity salary.
However, Sakasa retained KSh157,500 in house allowance after the court revised her employment dates.
The decision followed an appeal against a December 8, 2025, judgement by Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court.
The magistrate had awarded Sakasa KSh1,412,076, together with costs, after finding her employment unlawfully terminated.
Burden of Proof
At the heart of the dispute was whether Sakasa was dismissed or voluntarily left employment.
The employers argued that the magistrate wrongly shifted the burden of proof before she established termination.
Justice Marete relied on Section 47(5) of the Employment Act. Under that provision, an employee must initially establish that termination occurred and was unfair.
Citing Pius Machafu Isindu v Lavington Security Guards Limited [2017] eKLR, the judge reaffirmed that principle.
He found Sakasa had failed to discharge that initial burden after reconsidering the documentary evidence.
“On a full re-evaluation of the record”, the judge concluded, Sakasa had not proved termination by her employers.
That finding overturned the lower court’s decision and removed the legal foundation for compensation.
Maternity Dispute
The dispute centred partly on two documents concerning Sakasa’s maternity leave and her subsequent departure.
In a signed letter dated November 17, 2020, she requested maternity leave and agreed to return on April 12, 2021.
The employers maintained that she never resumed duty on the agreed date.
They said she visited the clinic on July 15, 2021, and indicated she could no longer continue working.
According to their account, they paid her KSh15,000 as her final month’s maternity salary.
They also gave her KSh5,000 as a gift for her child.
A handwritten note dated July 15 described the payment as “full and final”.
The employers relied on that record to support their argument that Sakasa voluntarily ceased employment.
Sakasa disputed their account, alleging that she was verbally dismissed upon returning from maternity leave.
She claimed the clinic removed her without notice or a hearing, raising allegations of unfair termination and pregnancy discrimination.
Her case invoked Article 27 of the Constitution and Section 5(3)(a) of the Employment Act.
However, the judge noted that she neither disputed signing the handwritten note nor explained its circumstances.
Although parts of the note referred to Sakasa in the third person, the judge considered it contemporaneous evidence.
He found it supported the employers’ account of the final payment.
Wrong Legal Approach
Justice Marete faulted the magistrate for applying principles governing employees who disappear from work.
The lower court had relied substantially on Owudu v Digital Sanitation Services Limited [2024] KEELRC 917 (KLR).
That decision addressed employers’ obligations when employees’ whereabouts or intentions become unknown.
However, the employers had not claimed Sakasa disappeared without explanation.
Instead, they maintained she attended the clinic, communicated her inability to continue working and accepted payment.
The judge found that the magistrate had applied the wrong legal framework to those circumstances.
The court also considered Sakasa’s silence after July 2021. She made no further contact before filing her claim around July 1, 2022.
The judge considered that year-long gap inconsistent with someone who believed she had been unlawfully dismissed.
He ultimately found that the evidence supported voluntary cessation on July 15, 2021.
Claims Slashed
The employers also challenged the magistrate’s finding that Sakasa began working on April 19, 2014.
They argued that her employment commenced on September 1, 2015, citing employment and payroll records.
One personal record was annotated “STARTED ON 1/9/15.” A payroll document dated October 1, 2015, showed her opening salary as KSh10,000.
Justice Marete accepted the September 2015 date, noting that no document supported the earlier commencement date.
The correction affected the computation of her employment-related entitlements.
With unfair termination unproven, the court cancelled compensation and one month’s salary in lieu of notice.
It also dismissed her maternity salary claim because she had not identified the allegedly unpaid months.
The overtime and public holiday claims also failed.
Sakasa had generally claimed 12-hour working days and work on every public holiday without producing attendance registers or specific records.
The employers presented evidence showing weekday operations between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.
The clinic operated on Saturdays until 1 p.m. and closed on public holidays.
The judge found that Sakasa had not rebutted that evidence.
He also questioned why the magistrate rejected annual leave claims for insufficient proof but accepted similarly unsupported overtime and holiday claims.
Allowance Survives
House allowance remained payable despite the overturned unfair dismissal finding.
Justice Marete held that entitlement depended on the period actually worked, rather than how employment ended.
Using the magistrate’s calculation method, the judge applied 15 per cent to Sakasa’s monthly salary of KSh15,000.
The resulting monthly allowance was KSh2,250 across approximately 70 completed months.
That produced KSh157,500, replacing the original KSh193,500 award.
READ ALSO: Nairobi Chapel Director Wins Constructive Dismissal Case After Dispute Over Church Funds
The court also upheld the rejection of Sakasa’s annual leave claim, which was not challenged on appeal.
The court partially allowed the appeal and left the original costs order undisturbed.
Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the appeal.
The judgement substantially reduced the employers’ liability but preserved Sakasa’s statutory entitlement.
It underscores the importance of credible employment records and evidence supporting individual monetary claims.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
