Kenyatta University v Julius Murungi Murianki [2001] KECA 148 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that wrongfully dismissed employees get only notice-period pay, not open-ended salary or general damages.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the damages for wrongful termination were limited to three months' salary in lieu of notice as provided in the contract
- 2.Whether arrears of salary and retirement benefits were special damages requiring express pleading and strict proof
- 3.From what date the respondent was entitled to salary following the purported retrospective termination
Key legal issues
#Measure of damages for wrongful dismissal
Damages are confined to the notice period or salary in lieu of notice; general damages are not recoverable
The court applied the settled common-law rule that a wrongfully dismissed employee recovers only what the employer would have owed had it complied with the contractual termination clause - here three months' notice or salary in lieu. The trial judge's award of monthly salary from termination until suit was therefore excessive and was adjusted to end in January 1992, plus three months' salary in lieu of notice.
Pleading and proof of special damages
Arrears of salary and retirement benefits are special damages requiring express pleading and strict proof, but where the amounts are known and not disputed, that standard is met
The court accepted the appellant's submission that retirement benefits and arrears of salary are special damages. However, it found the arrears were pleaded and proved despite the exact figure not being stated, since salaries are not speculative items and the amounts were known to both parties. The order for the respondent's contributions to the Benefit Scheme was therefore left undisturbed.
Effect of purported retrospective termination without notice
A termination without the requisite contractual notice is wrongful, and a purported retrospective termination cannot defeat the employee's accrued entitlements
The appellant's 1992 letter purported to treat the respondent's services as terminated in 1989 retrospectively and without notice. The court held this was ineffective: the respondent remained an employee after secondment and after USAB's dissolution, and could not have known his services were dispensed with three years earlier. Salary was therefore awarded up to January 1992, when the position was first clarified, plus salary in lieu of notice.
Legal principles established
#- Damages for wrongful dismissal are limited to what the employer would have paid had the contract been terminated in accordance with its terms; general damages are not recoverable
- Arrears of salary and retirement benefits are special damages which must be expressly pleaded and strictly proved
- An employee seconded to another body remains an employee of the original employer unless the secondment terminates the contract
Court orders
#- 1.The appellant shall pay the respondent's salary at Shs.10,000/= per month from November 1989 to January 1992 (27 months x Shs.10,000/= = Shs.270,000/=)
- 2.The appellant shall further pay the respondent Shs.30,000/= being salary for three months in lieu of notice
- 3.The appellant shall pay the respondent's contributions to the Benefit Scheme as ordered by the learned Judge
- 4.These payments shall bear interest at Court rates
- 5.The appellant shall also pay the costs of the suit in the superior court
- 6.No order as to costs in this appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. No. 2947 of 1994
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the applicable appellate statute (not expressly stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Salary for the full period up to commencement of suit (June 1994)
The court held the respondent was only entitled to salary up to January 1992, when the appellant first clearly communicated the termination
Costs of the appeal
The court made no order as to costs in the appeal
Costs
The appellant shall pay the costs of the suit in the superior court; no order as to costs in this appeal (each party to bear their own costs of the appeal).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is well settled that in a claim by an employee against his employer for damages for wrongful dismissal, such damages are limited to the amount the employer would have been obliged to pay if he had brought the contract to an end in accordance with its terms by giving either the proper notice or salary in lieu of notice. General damages are not recoverable.
We agree with Mr. Owuor, counsel for the appellant, that arrears of salary and retirement benefits are in the nature of special damages and must be expressly pleaded and strictly proved.
1.The appellant shall pay the respondent's salary correctly assessed by the learned Judge at Shs.10,000/= per month from November, 1989 to January, 1992 (27 months x Shs.10,000/= Shs.270,000/=).
6.We make no order as to costs in this appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment text contains a garbled/overlapping passage where the trial judge's finding is introduced, suggesting a transcription error in the copy
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenyatta University v Julius Murungi Murianki [2001] KECA 148 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Civil Appeal No. 329 of 2000. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/148/eng@2001-11-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.