Munyua v AMREF Health Africa (Previously Africa Medical and Research Foundation Kenya) (Civil Appeal 481 of 2019) [2025] KECA 2125 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that working without a required professional licence makes employment illegal, so AMREF lawfully ended the technician's job.
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 proved a case of unfair dismissal, having regard to the burden of proof under section 47(5) of the Employment Act
- 2.Whether the termination of the appellant's employment was procedurally and substantively fair given his lack of a valid practising licence
- 3.Whether the appellant proved discrimination in his replacement by an intern
- 4.Whether the appellant was entitled to payment for unused leave days and salary for days worked after termination
Key legal issues
#Legality of employment without statutory registration
Employment as a laboratory technician without registration under section 19 of the MLTT Act was illegal ab initio; termination for failure to secure registration was in furtherance of a legal cause and substantively justified.
Section 19 of the Medical Laboratory Technicians and Technologists Act prohibits acting as a laboratory technician without registration and criminalises both unregistered practice and employment of unregistered persons. The appellant had not passed all required examination papers, and the Act contains no provision permitting provisional registration, so his claimed provisional licence could not legitimize the engagement. Subsequent directions to acquire qualifications could not cure the original statutory violation.
Procedural fairness of the termination
The termination complied with Clause 16.2.1 of the Service Agreement, which required two months' written notice, and the termination letter conformed with that clause.
The letter of termination gave two months' notice effective 1st March 2014 with the last working day as 30th April 2014, and required the employee to take pending leave during the notice period. This matched Clause 16.2.1 of the Service Agreement signed by the parties on 31st March 2012, satisfying the Court that the process was procedurally fair under the contract.
Discrimination claim
The discrimination claim failed: employment contrary to statute barred the claim, and the appellant never proved that his successor was unqualified.
The Court held that once the employment was established to be contrary to statute, the appellant was barred from asserting the discrimination claim. Independently, the appellant tendered no sufficient proof that the intern who replaced him lacked professional qualifications, so the unequal-treatment argument under section 5 of the Employment Act was not made out.
Burden of proof in unfair termination claims
The burden of proving unfair termination rests on the employee; only then does the burden shift to the employer to justify the grounds for termination.
Relying on section 47(5) of the Employment Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Gwer v Kenya Medical Research Institute, the Court reiterated that the employee bears the overriding obligation to lay substantial material before the court to discharge the evidential burden before the burden shifts to the employer. The trial Judge was found not to have erred in this respect.
Legal principles established
#- Employment contracted in violation of a statutory requirement for registration/licensing is illegal ab initio and cannot be sanitized by post-employment directions to acquire the qualification; the employer may lawfully terminate to end the statutory violation.
- A first appellate court must re-evaluate, re-assess and re-analyze the record and determine whether the conclusions reached by the trial Judge are to stand, giving reasons either way.
- In a claim of unfair termination, the employee bears the burden of proving that unfair termination occurred, and the employer bears the burden of justifying the grounds for termination.
Court orders
#- 1.The appellant's appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal under rule 31(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#12 months' salary compensation for wrongful dismissal, payment for eight leave days not taken and 10 days' prorated salary
The appointment without a valid statutory licence was invalid and the termination was in furtherance of a legal cause; the appellant never proved discrimination or entitlement to the claimed dues
Costs
In deference to the general rule that costs follow the event, the costs of the appeal are awarded 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.
Therefore, the ofier extended to him by the respondent for him to acquire the requisite qualifications after the fact cannot apply to sanitize the irregular and wrongful violation of the statute.
Based on the foregoing analysis, it is clear that this appeal lacks merit and is for dismissal. We hereby dismiss the appellant’s appeal.
In deference to the general rule that costs follow the event, the costs of the appeal are awarded to the respondent.
the burden of proving that an unfair termination of employment or wrongful dismissal has occurred shall rest on the employee, while the burden of justifying the grounds for the termination of employment or wrongful dismissal shall rest on the employer.
We find dificulty in accepting the legitimacy of the contents of this letter for two reasons. First, as at this date, it is apparent that the appellant had yet to pass all the required papers to warrant registration by the Board; and secondly, upon perusal of the MLTT Act, we do not find a provision permitting provisional registration by the Board.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records the termination notice as effective 30th March 2014 on renewal of the contract, while the termination letter set the last working day as 30th April 2014; the record is internally inconsistent as to the exact termination dates.
The judgment contains OCR/typographical errors ('Stafi', 'ofiective', 'afiected', 'dificulty', 'ofiended', 'ofience', 'profi ered', 'sufiicient'), indicating the text is an imperfect transcription of the original.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Munyua v AMREF Health Africa (Previously Africa Medical and Research Foundation Kenya) (Civil Appeal 481 of 2019) [2025] KECA 2125 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Appeal dated 23rd September 2019 (ELRC appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2125/eng@2025-12-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.