Munyao v Africa Medical Research Foundation (AMREF Health Africa) (Cause 197 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 771 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that COVID-19 travel restrictions did not justify ending this employee's contract, making the termination unfair and worth six months' salary.
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 of employment was frustrated
- 2.Depending on the answer in (i) whether termination of the Claimant's contract of employment was fair
- 3.Whether the Counterclaim is justified
- 4.Is the Claimant entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant's contract of employment was frustrated by the COVID-19 pandemic and containment measures
The contract was not frustrated; travel restrictions and reduced funding altered the manner of performance but did not render it completely impossible or radically different
The court examined the job description and found the Claimant's responsibilities were broad and went beyond travel-based duties. He spent 17 weeks out of 52 in travel in 2019, meaning the remaining 35 weeks involved non-travel roles. The Respondent had adopted a Remote Working Policy, showing an alternative mode of performance existed. Financial distress would have called for a redundancy under Section 40 of the Employment Act and Clause 21.4.1 of the Employee Manual, which the Respondent avoided by electing the easier route of citing frustration.
Whether the termination was fair and valid
The reasons advanced were not fair and valid within the meaning of Section 45(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act; the termination was unfair
Having found no frustration, the foundational reason for the termination collapsed. The court held that the Respondent's stated reasons did not meet the statutory standard of valid and fair reasons under Section 45(2) of the Employment Act, rendering the termination unfair.
Whether the Respondent's Counterclaim for USD 177,104 was justified
The Counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety; the court found it implausible that the Claimant did no work at all
The Claimant exhibited a positive Contract Renewal Evaluation by his supervisor dated 6th August 2019 stating his performance met expectations, and an email from Mr. Misrak seeking his assistance. The court found it highly improbable that a supervisor would rate him positively if he was not performing, and implausible that he did no work at all to warrant a refund of salary.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to reinstatement
Reinstatement was refused as the statutory three-year window under Section 12(3)(vii) of the ELRC Act had lapsed
The Claimant was terminated on 22nd April 2020 and the judgment was delivered on 20th March 2024, nearly four years later. An order of reinstatement would be contrary to Section 12(3)(vii) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, which limits reinstatement to within three years of dismissal.
Legal principles established
#- Where a contract of employment is frustrated, it is terminated by operation of law and there is no dismissal; the contract ends automatically and without the fault of either party
- Frustration requires that performance be rendered completely impossible or radically different from what the parties originally intended; a mere alteration in the manner of performance is insufficient
- A claim for special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved with as much particularity as the circumstances permit
- An employer facing financial distress or reduced workforce needs should invoke the redundancy provisions under Section 40 of the Employment Act rather than conveniently citing frustration
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Claimant's termination from employment by the Respondent, was unfair
- 2.The Claimant is awarded compensatory damages in the sum of 66,414 USD being equivalent to six (6) months of his gross salary
- 3.Interest on the amount in (b) at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 4.The Claimant shall also have the costs of the suit
- 5.The Counterclaim is dismissed in its entirety with no orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Section 12 (3) (vii); Employment Act 2007
Relief refused
#Reinstatement
The court can only order reinstatement within three years of dismissal; the Claimant was terminated on 22nd April 2020, so reinstatement was no longer feasible
Maximum compensation of 12 months' salary
The court awarded six months' salary instead
Unpaid terminal dues of USD 8,229.85
The specific claim was neither particularised nor strictly proved; the Claimant threw in a global figure without demonstrating how he arrived at it
Severance pay at 15 days' pay per completed year of service
Compensatory damages had already been awarded; the court applied the 'fair go all round' principle
General damages for unfair labour practices
Not specifically addressed in the final orders; only the declaration and compensatory damages were granted
Declaration of unlawful redundancy
The court found the contract was not frustrated and termination was unfair, but did not make a declaration of unlawful redundancy
Costs
The Claimant shall have the costs of the suit; the Counterclaim is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
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.
All things considered, I am led to conclude that the contract of employment was not frustrated by the travel restrictions imposed by the Government at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The bottom line is that in the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the performance of the contract was made completely impossible or radically difierentfrom what the parties originally intended.
In my respectful view, the Respondent opted for the easiest way out of the employment contract hence elected to cite frustration of contract.
A declaration that the Claimant's termination from employment by the Respondent, was unfair.
The Claimant is awarded compensatory damages in the sum of 66,414 USD being equivalent to six (6) months of his gross salary.
The Counterclaim is dismissed in its entirety with no orders as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The Counterclaim amount is inconsistently stated in the judgment: pleaded as 177,104 USD in the Memorandum of Response and Counterclaim, but RW1's testimony refers to USD 177,400.00, and the analysis section reverts to 117,104 USD
The judgment's issues for determination are numbered with duplicated numerals (i, ii, ii, iii), indicating a typographical inconsistency in the framing of issues
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Munyao v Africa Medical Research Foundation (AMREF Health Africa) (Cause 197 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 771 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/771/eng@2024-03-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.