Taabu v Nairobi Evangelical Graduate School of Theology (Civil Appeal 599 of 2019) [2025] KECA 1737 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that internal circulation of a dismissal letter is not defamation, and older dismissals can't claim damages under the new Employment Act.
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 appellant was entitled to general damages for unlawful dismissal beyond the Kshs. 87,000 awarded by the trial court in respect of the dismissal
- 2.Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the appellant's claim in defamation and in not granting her general, aggravated or exemplary damages in respect thereof
Key legal issues
#Entitlement to general damages for unlawful dismissal
The trial court did not err in refusing general damages because the repealed Employment Act, Cap 226 governed the contract and provided only salary in lieu of notice as the remedy; the trial court had no power to grant general damages for unfair dismissal.
The appellant was dismissed on 9th August 2006, before the Employment Act, 2007 came into force. Under section 16 of the repealed Act, a party could terminate without notice upon payment of wages for the notice period. The Act made no provision for general damages for unlawful dismissal, so the trial court's award of two months' unpaid salary plus one month in lieu of notice exhausted the legal remedy, and its failure to award general damages was not an error.
Publication and defamatory character of the dismissal letter
The dismissal letter was not 'published' in law: it was addressed to the appellant and copied only to officers with a legitimate interest and to the respondent's advocates, and no evidence showed circulation to any third party or prospective employer.
The letter was copied internally to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Human Resources Director, the ISAR Director and the respondent's lawyers, each with a legitimate interest in the dismissal or in recovering the alleged losses. The appellant's claim that she lost a job with the Anglican Church was unsupported by any evidence and she did not explain how an internally circulated letter could have been 'published' to the Church. The defamation claim therefore failed on the publication element identified in Musikari Kombo.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant in a defamation suit must principally establish the existence of a defamatory statement, that the defendant published or caused publication of the defamatory statement, and that the publication refers to the claimant.
- Under the repealed Employment Act, Cap 226, a claimant whose contract was terminated without notice was limited to wages or salary for the period of notice; no general damages for unlawful dismissal were available under that law.
- Circulation of a dismissal letter internally, to officers of the employer and its advocates on a need-to-know basis, does not amount to publication of a libel to third parties.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Not stated in judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (statute/Article not expressly stated); judgment delivered under rule 34(4) of the Court's Rules
Relief refused
#General damages for unlawful dismissal beyond the Kshs. 87,000 awarded by the trial court
The applicable law at the time of dismissal was the repealed Employment Act, Cap 226, which did not provide for general damages for unlawful dismissal; the remedy was limited to salary in lieu of notice
General, aggravated or exemplary damages for libel and an order for retraction and apology
The dismissal letter was addressed to the appellant and copied only internally to persons with a legitimate interest and to the respondent's advocates; there was no publication to third parties and no evidence supporting dissemination to the Anglican Church
Three months' unpaid salary at the higher rate of Kshs. 37,095, severance pay and alternative service pay (abandoned or failed)
Trial court properly relied on salary vouchers showing a monthly salary of Kshs. 29,000; the appellant abandoned the grounds on severance and alternative service pay
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
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.
Given the provisions of the employment law applicable to the contract between the appellant and the respondent, the trial court had no power to grant general damages for unfair dismissal to the appellant.
It follows that a claimant in a defamation suit ought to principally establish, in no particular order: i. The existence of a defamatory statement; ii. The defendant has published or caused the publication of the defamatory statement; iii. The publication refers to the claimant.
The upshot of our findings above is that we find no merit in the present appeal. It is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent figure for the alleged loss: the plaint and counterclaim plead Kshs. 1,083,997, but the appellant's evidence refers to Kshs. 1,087,997, and the audit witness gives components of Kshs. 609,756 (procurement) and Kshs. 474,241 (airtime) that do not sum to the pleaded figure; a witness also refers to airtime worth Kshs. 474,421 and a total loss of Kshs. 1,294,149.
The appellant testified she was employed in early 2004, while the plaint avers employment from 9th February 2005; the memorandum of appeal also refers to unpaid salary for June and July 2007 whereas the claim concerned June and July 2006.
Ochieng, J.A. sat in the appeal but died before delivery of the judgment, which was delivered under rule 34(4) by the remaining bench; the coram as printed names only Musinga and Ngugi.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Egala & 7 others v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 178 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1649 (KLR)[2026] KECA 1649 (KLR)31 Jul 2026followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Taabu v Nairobi Evangelical Graduate School of Theology (Civil Appeal 599 of 2019) [2025] KECA 1737 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (memorandum of appeal dated 2nd November 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1737/eng@2025-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.