Mwaniki v Strathmore Research and Consultancy Centre Limited (Cause 2149 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 93 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Claimant's contract was terminated lawfully and fairly
- 2.Whether the Claimant merits the remedies pleaded
- 3.Whether the counterclaim by the Respondent, in the sum of Kshs. 67,860, is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the probationary contract was lawfully and fairly terminated
Termination was lawful and fair; the Claimant failed probation on valid grounds and the brief extension of probation was for appraisal and clearance only, not confirmation
The contract provided confirmation depended on performance. The Claimant filed her self-evaluation late, after probation expired. The Respondent accommodated her by evaluating beyond the probation date, but this did not confirm her. She missed her training target of 10-15 participants and attended courses without authorisation. She conceded valid grounds justified termination on cross-examination.
Whether the Claimant merits the remedies pleaded
None of the pleaded remedies was established
Notice and anticipatory salaries had no foundation as the Claimant was never confirmed. The August 2016 salary claim lacked evidential support. Anticipated meal benefits could not survive termination. The Provident Fund claim was unsupported by pay slips. Leave pay failed because leave is not earned during probation. No terminal dues order was warranted.
Whether the Respondent's counterclaim for Kshs. 67,860 course fees is merited
The counterclaim succeeds; the Claimant conceded the indebtedness in evidence and in her e-mail of 15th August 2016
The Claimant attended training without authorisation, agreed to refund the costs, and confirmed in evidence she was made aware she would pay and had not paid. Her e-mail to Dr. Freshia documented her intention to repay in instalments. She did not dispute the amount of Kshs. 67,860.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who does not complete probation successfully and is never confirmed cannot claim salaries and allowances for the anticipated remainder of a fixed-term contract.
- A brief extension of probation confined to performance appraisal and clearance, to which the employee acquiesced, is not a confirmatory extension of the contract.
- Failure to meet set performance targets and unauthorised attendance at training courses constitute valid grounds justifying termination of employment.
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is declined.
- 2.The Claimant shall pay to the Respondent the sum of Kshs. 67,860 in refund of the cost of training.
- 3.No order on the costs and interest.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Relief refused
#1-month salary in lieu of notice
No foundation; the Claimant never completed probation and was never confirmed
August 2016 salary at Kshs. 50,000
No evidence the Claimant worked the whole of August 2016; terminal dues were offered through the letter of 18th August 2016
Salary for September 2016 to January 2018 (17 months) and meal benefit for that period
The Claimant did not work the anticipated 2 years; it would be absurd to pay anticipated allowances after termination
Provident Fund refund of Kshs. 28,800
No pay slips produced; only a June 2016 pay slip showing a Kshs. 2,400 deduction
Leave pay
The Claimant conceded she was not entitled to leave during probation
Order compelling the Claimant to return Respondent's property (ID tag, keys)
No details of the items were given in evidence
Costs
No order on the costs and interest.
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.
The brief extension of the probationary period was confined to performance appraisal and clearance, and was not a confirmatory extension. The Claimant acquiesced to the brief extension, by her late initiation of self-evaluation.
Even had the Claimant's contract been confirmed, these were adequately valid grounds to justify termination of employment.
It Is Ordered: a. The Claim is declined. b. The Claimant shall pay to the Respondent the sum of Kshs. 67,860 in refund of the cost of training. c. No order on the costs and interest.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, the name of the Respondent, or the Claimant's name; the parties are referred to generically throughout.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwaniki v Strathmore Research and Consultancy Centre Limited (Cause 2149 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 93 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment as supplied. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/93/eng@2024-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.