The Employment and Labour Relations Court has overturned a decision that had awarded compensation to a former employee of Aquamist Limited, finding that the worker failed to prove claims that a resignation letter attributed to him had been forged.
In a judgment delivered on June 19, 2026, Justice Jemimah Keli allowed an appeal filed by Aquamist and set aside an earlier ruling of the Milimani Magistrates’ Court, which had found that the company unfairly terminated the employment of Robert Mburu.
The dispute arose from conflicting accounts surrounding the end of Mburu’s employment in 2021. Mburu maintained that he was verbally dismissed after being informed that business had slowed down and that he should remain at home until he was recalled. He later claimed that upon returning, he was informed that his services were no longer needed.
Aquamist, however, argued that Mburu voluntarily left his job after submitting a resignation letter following a period of absence from work. The trial court initially sided with the employee, questioning the authenticity of the resignation letter and concluding that the employer had not sufficiently demonstrated that Mburu had resigned.
On appeal, Justice Keli re-examined the evidence and reached a different finding. The judge noted that although Mburu denied signing the resignation letter during the hearing, he had not filed any formal pleadings challenging the document despite knowing that the employer’s defence was anchored on resignation.
According to the court, once an employee alleges that a signature appearing on a document is not his own, the burden shifts to him to provide evidence supporting that allegation.
“The claimant had the burden to provide evidence as the owner of the signature to prove that it was not his signature,” Justice Keli stated.
The court observed that allegations of forgery are serious in nature and require more than a simple denial. The judgment emphasized that such claims ordinarily call for credible supporting evidence, including expert analysis where necessary. In Mburu’s case, the court found that no handwriting expert had been called to challenge the signature appearing on the resignation letter. The employee had also not reported the alleged forgery to investigative authorities or sought any forensic examination of the document.
Justice Keli held that without such evidence, the claim that the resignation letter was forged remained unproven. The court further rejected the argument that the resignation was ineffective because it had not been formally accepted by the employer.
“Resignation is a unilateral act, and there is no requirement of acceptance of the same by the employer,” the judge said.
The court accepted evidence from Aquamist’s human resource department that the resignation letter had been received and processed internally.
Justice Keli also addressed salary payments that continued after the resignation date. While the lower court had viewed the payments as evidence that the employment relationship still existed, the appellate court accepted the company’s explanation that the payments had been made out of consideration for the employee’s financial circumstances.
The judge found that the payments alone could not invalidate the resignation letter or establish that Mburu had been unfairly dismissed.
Having found no proof of termination and no credible challenge to the resignation document, the court concluded that the claim for unfair dismissal could not succeed.
“The respondent did not prove the termination of his employment on a balance of probabilities and did not impeach the produced resignation letter,” Justice Keli ruled.
The appeal was allowed, the earlier judgment was set aside, and Mburu’s claim was dismissed. Aquamist was also awarded the costs of both the trial and the appeal.
The ruling is expected to provide guidance in future employment disputes involving contested resignation letters, particularly where allegations of forgery are raised without expert or forensic evidence.
