Akama v Kisii University & 2 others (Cause E048 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 109 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kisii University was ordered to pay its former Vice-Chancellor over KSh 2.1 million because it unfairly terminated him instead of honouring a contract clause letting him return as a professor.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Enforceability of clause 31 of the employment contract
Clause 31 was binding and enforceable; the 1st respondent was obliged to allow the claimant to revert as a full Professor upon his expressed willingness to serve.
The parties entered the contract willingly; no vitiating factor (misrepresentation, duress, mistake, undue influence) was pleaded or proved. The 1st respondent drafted the clause, copied from another university's template without domestication, and the contra proferentem rule applies against it. Unconstitutionality was alleged but not proved, and the authorities cited concerned statutes, not contract terms.
Whether implementation of clause 31 required Council approval or resolution
No Council resolution was required; the contract bound the parties directly and Council needed only to note the claimant's willingness to serve.
Since clause 31 was embodied in the contract, implementation did not depend on a Council resolution. The 73rd Council meeting did not dismiss the clause, and the purported letter of 3rd May 2023 was not proved inauthentic: the respondents' witnesses did not attend the meeting, adduced no evidence of forgery or want of authority, and a misdescription of the signatory's designation does not invalidate a letter.
Whether employment was unfairly terminated or lapsed by effluxion of time
The employment did not merely lapse; the 3rd respondent's letter of 10th July 2023 amounted to a termination that was unfair and unlawful under Section 45 of the Employment Act.
Fixed-term contracts ordinarily end on expiry (Ruth Gathoni Ngotho; Transparency International v Omondi), but clause 31 created a contractually enforceable promise of continued employment. The claimant expressed willingness to serve as early as December 2022, and the termination letter gave no substantive justification and followed no fair procedure.
Whether the claimant's dormant position at Moi University barred his claim
It did not; leave of absence resembles secondment and did not extinguish his right to enforce the Kisii University contract.
An employee on leave of absence is off the payroll and retains only the position, bound by the leave terms. The claimant's working at Kisii University would not amount to holding two public offices, and his reinstatement at Moi University did not affect his contractual rights against the 1st respondent.
Legal principles established
#- A party who signs a contract is bound by its terms absent fraud or misrepresentation, and the drafter cannot dispute the meaning of a clause it authored.
- An ambiguous contractual clause is construed against the drafter under the contra proferentem rule.
- Where clause 31 of a Vice-Chancellor's contract provides for reversion to a professorship, employment continues beyond the fixed term if the employee expresses willingness to serve.
- Termination without substantive justification and procedural fairness is unfair within section 45 of the Employment Act.
- An employee on leave of absence retains a dormant position and may sue to enforce a separate contract of employment; this is not holding two public offices.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that termination of employment was unfair
- 2.Equivalent of 3 months gross salary as per Clause 31 of the employment contract, Kshs.2,109,051.00
- 3.Commuter allowance for 3 months
- 4.Costs of the suit
- 5.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Section 12 (with Employment Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Akama v Kisii University & 2 others (Cause E048 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 109 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/109/eng@2025-01-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.